April 15, 2004
The meeting of the American River Watershed Group (ARWG) meeting was called to order by Rich Gresham, Placer County Resource Conservation District (RCD) at 10:09 a.m. at Placer County Water Agency’s “American River Room” located at 144 Ferguson Road, Auburn.
Present: Rich Gresham, PCRCD District Manager, Tom Wehri and Stewart Feldman PCRCD Directors, and Katie Maloney, PCRCD Admin. Assistant; Kevin Roberts, Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) Biologist; Marie Davis, Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) Consultant; Carol Kennedy, US Forest Service (USFS) Watershed Program Manager - Tahoe National Forest; Rich Johnson USFS Foresthill District Ranger; Cliff Heitz, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) District Conservationist; John Lane, Teichert Materials; Tina Lunt, Sloughouse RCD Project Coordinator; Ellen Carlson, Florin RCD Resource Conservation Coordinator; Mark Egbert, El Dorado County & Georgetown Divide RCDs; John Holder, NPDES Coordinator - CA Dept. of Transportation (CalTrans); Holly Sheradin, State Water Resources Control Board Clean Water Team Coordinator; Bonnie Bagwell; Conor O’Neill; and Sue Stack.
American River Watershed Coordinator Report:
Update on the North Fork American River Sediment Dynamics Study (SDS):
Bonnie Bagwell reported notifying the top four candidates they had made the final four and that the selection process will continue once funding is in place.
Subcommittee Reports:
Placer County Fire Safe Alliance (Alliance):
Stewart Feldman reported submitting his final report and noted it is available in pdf file form and can be requested from Katie Maloney anyone is interested in reviewing it. Stewart indicated he is still available at aex@garlic.com .
The Ponderosa, Iowa Hill, and Colfax Fire Safe Councils collaborated on putting together a “Koffee Klatch” to be hosted in the Weimar area.
Business:
ARWG Watershed Coordinator Grant Update:
Rich Gresham introduced Tom Wehri, Placer County RCD Board Chair and former Executive Director of the CA Association of RCDs (CARCD).
Tom stressed the importance of watershed based efforts and the implementation of projects-on-the-ground.
Tom reported the PCRCD is responsible and accountable to the CA Dept. of Conservation (DOC), the contracting agency for this grant. He noted this responsibility necessitates the development of an oversight system. Tom noted the RCD Board has held discussions on the issue of sustainability in terms of coordinator positions and referred to current economics and resulting funding cuts. Tom suggested a division of work, as outlined in the workplan, between coordination and project management and proposed a breakout of work and hourly allocations between the two, based on time needed to accomplish contract deliverables. Tom proposed the coordinator position be allocated 1800 hours per year with 280 hours per year allocated to the RCD Manager for project oversight and management.
Tom indicated the RFP, review, and selection process is slated to move forward very quickly once the contract is fully executed in order to have a Coordinator in place by the end of May.
ARWG members requested there be ARWG representation in the proposal review process.
Bonnie passed out copies of the draft workplan and the final budget and detailed the differences between the draft and final workplans.
Tom proposed the RCD’s District Manager provide product/deliverable oversight by carrying workplan tasks: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4.
Group discussion points included the following:
The importance of being proactive in the area of cooperation and collaboration.
The announcement that the El Dorado and Georgetown RCDs were also awarded Coordinator funding and are planning to hire the Coordinator as an employee.
Coordinator will be directly answerable to the RCD. The Coordinator will be responsible for representing the ARWG, making communication critical.
The RCD Manager will give a grant workplan status report to the RCD Board monthly.
The ARWG will be expected to make recommendations, but RCD ultimately responsible for implementation of workplan.
RCD’s historically use a working group approach to garner input and feedback.
The importance of implementing a successful SDS effort was stressed.
Important for the Coordinator to be able to represent ARWG views to others in the region.
The request for the opportunity to provide ARWG input in an evaluation process re: implementation of the workplan.
The possibility of contracting with the Coordinator on a year-by-year basis in order to provide an opportunity for annual evaluation.
The ARWG is a dynamic entity and the coordinator needs to be able to work with and respond in kind.
If the ARWG identifies a problem with Coordinator performance the RCD should be notified so it can address the problem.
It was suggested the ARWG set up an internal mechanism to provide for an ARWG evaluation process that could then in turn inform the RCD of their findings.
Discussion was closed with the selection of Marie Davis and Rich Johnson as ARWG representatives for participation in the review process.
Presentation on Citizen Monitoring Opportunities and the Clean Water Team(CWT):
Holly Sheradin, Statewide Citizen Monitoring Program Coordinator for the CA State Water Resources Control Board gave an overview of the program and its mission to build and support watershed stewardship through encouragement and empowerment of citizen monitoring programs.
Holly reviewed the CWT regions and resources that include technical assistance in developing a monitoring plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) development, data and field sheets, grant and funding support, the building of partnerships, and an equipment lending library.
The CWT can also provide training workshops on many subjects including training for trainers, streamside surveying, QAPP development, data management, and group field training.
Group discussion points including:
The issue of maintaining quality control through protocols and quality assurance measures.
The importance of finding historical data to determine baseline data as a Stream BioSurvey only provides a snapshot in time.
Holly noted citizens are empowered to acquire a snapshot of stream conditions to identify problem areas that can then be addressed and how snapshots events can be organized.
Mark Egbert emphasized how the Clean Water Team has assisted their monitoring effort by helping train in protocol and chain of custody procedures.
Holly noted the QAPP has procedures and protocols that are a notch above those used by professionals and stressed the importance of protocol compliance.
Kevin Roberts inquired about how the data being collected is being used.
Holly indicated a statewide report will be compiled down the line and that data is being reviewed and used in decision making and watershed assessment efforts on a local level.
Kevin asked about successes of the program.
Holly noted the Tahoe Basin identified an E. coli problem at their second snapshot event that was traced to illegal boat dumping. Their third snapshot event highlighted that the problem had been corrected.
Kevin asked if a monitoring hierarchy has been developed.
Holly reported individual groups determine their monitoring interests, whether they be in macroinvertebrate sampling, participation in a snapshot event, or field data collection that includes pH, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and temperature information.
John Lane asked if after collection the data is evaluated in terms of quality assurance before being added into a database.
Holly indicated the state board is very aware of the need to document the quality of data being collected. Another quality assurance check is being done before data is entered into the statewide database. She acknowledged that honesty and integrity are imperative in the data collection process and noted the professionalism that has been exhibited by citizen monitors.
Holly reviewed EPA and other literature that supports citizen monitoring efforts.
Holly closed discussion by sharing her phone number, (916) 341-5466, and inviting further inquiries.
Four Basic Questions of Interest Put Forth by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board re: Monitoring:
What water quality monitoring is currently taking place by your group?
What water quality monitoring is being planned by your group?
What do you feel are important data gaps and/or needs for monitoring?
What are your group's short and long-term goals for monitoring in the American River Watershed?
Rich reviewed the questions and requested input from the group in time for a May 4th meeting where issues and needs in terms of citizen monitoring efforts will be discussed.
Open Discussion:
Kevin Roberts noted an instance of concentrated water flows from highways resulting in sluicing new water ways downhill from state highways.
John Holder asked Kevin to get together with him regarding the specifics so the problem can be addressed.
Rich Gresham reviewed the Proposition 50 Chapter 8 funding opportunity that will support Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) development efforts.
An IRWMP will address such issues as water quality and quantity, treatment, water transfers, non-point source pollution, etc.
Rich and Stewart both attended a scoping workshop and wanted to report back to the group re: the funding opportunity.
Rich noted the Auburn Ravine/Coon Creek Watershed Group has asked him to pursue conversations with possible partners re: the pursuit of a local effort.
The criteria for funding is still being developed and may happen in two phases, the first being to develop an IRWMP and the second to implement projects. The funding effort is hoping to provide an impetus to develop a new plan vs. a cobbling together existing plans.
The website where information can be found is: www.dpla2.water.ca.gov/grants-loans/pdfs/Prop50summary.pdf . He noted the website address is case sensitive.
Next Meeting and Adjournment:
The next meeting will take place on May 20th. The meeting was adjourned at 12:07 p.m.