Back to list of minutes available

June 11, 1998
Roseville, California

MINUTES

Members present

Jim Branham, Resources Agency
Richard Wilson, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
Susan Cochrane, Department of Fish and Game
Rick Rayburn, Department of Parks and Recreation
Nita Vail, Department of Food and Agriculture
Pat Meehan, Department of Conservation
Brian Smith, California Department of Transportation
Alex Glazer, University of California
Bob Haussler, California Energy Commission
Curtis Creel, Department of Water Resources
James Shevock, National Park Service
Diane Holcomb, National Resources Conservation Service
Pat Foulk, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ed Hastey, Bureau of Land Management
Chuck Solomon, Bureau of Reclamation
Sam Ziegler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
James Bybee, National Marine Fisheries Service
Colonel Eric Christenson, U.S. Marine Corps
Doug Balmain, San Joaquin Valley Regional Association of County Supervisors
Donna Thomas, California Association of Resource Conservation Districts
G. Lynn Sprague, USDA Forest Service
William Vance, California Environmental Protection Agency
Fran Gratton, Sacramento-Mother Lode Regional Association of California Counties
Robert Meacher, Regional Council of Rural Counties
Nancy Huffman, Northern California Counties Supervisors Association
Mike Valentine, State Lands Commission

Call to order

Co-Chairman Ed Hastey called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m.

Approval of Minutes for November 19,1997 meeting

Minutes were approved with the following corrections: additions to members present are G. Lynn Sprague, USDA Forest Service, and William Vance, California Environmental Protection Agency. Spelling correction for Bill Rooe, California Association of Resource Conservation Districts, was noted.

Council Announcements

California National Envirothon Competition 1999 - Donna Thomas, California Association of Resource Conservation Districts (CARCD). Request made for sponsorship, judges, and compiling of study materials for annual meeting to be held at Humboldt State University. Watershed management is the national topic for 1998.

Wildland, Fire and Endangered Species on Military Lands - Colonel Eric Christenson, U.S. Marine Corps. Announcement was made on the mutual agreements under development with Department of Fish and Game.

American River North Fork Project - Richard Wilson, Department of Forestry and Fire Projection. A collaborative project to demonstrate on-the-ground vegetation management.

Action: Mr. Hastey directed the Council to follow through on Richard Wilson's proposal and appealed for staff volunteers to implement the work.

Report of the Executive Committee - Carl Rountree, Chair

1998-99 Work Plan - Carl Rountree reviewed the work plan noting changes, particularly Goal 4: support for on-the-ground watershed projects.

Council comments:

• Agencies need to make watershed project support part of staff’s job at local level

• American River North Fork Project would be a good one to provide support

• Need a good forum to agree on where watershed focus should be

• Council’s regional leadership team effort would have benefited from a "project", such as the one proposed by Richard Wilson.

Action: Endorsement of workplan and support for American River North Fork Project under Goal 4.

It was noted that staff would address the workplan priorities identified through the afternoon survey.

1998-99 Budget Status - Janine Stenback reported on the budget status. No change in council member fees.

Future Meetings: September 16-17,1998 joint meeting with Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC) annual conference in Redding, and November 12-13, 1998 regional meeting in Susanville (Modoc/Lassen bioregion).

Biodiversity Award - Presentation will be made at the September 1998 Council meeting. Executive committee to make selection.

The following exhibits were available for interaction and viewing during breaks and lunch:

• GeoWBS, water quality information display - ICE, University of California Davis

• U.S. EPA's web site: Surf Your Watershed - as demonstrated by ICE

• Watershed Information Technical System (WITS) - CERES, Resources Agency

Moderator: Don Erman, Director, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California Davis

Overview of California's Water Resources: Preview of the State Water Plan - Jeanine Jones, Department of Water Resources. The Department of Water Resources publishes an update of the California Water Plan every five years. Bulletin 160-98 is the latest in a series of water plan updates. After incorporating public comments, DWR will publish a final version of the report in late 1998. California’s water shortages are forecasted to grow to 2.9 MAF in average water years and 7 MAF in drought years by 2020. ncrease expected in urban water use (3.2 MAF), decline in agricultural water use (2.3 MAF), and a minor increase in projected environmental water use (.9 MAF).

• State Perspective: Jim Branham, Resources Agency - On July 31, 1997, Governor Wilson issued an Executive Order that established a Cabinet-level Watershed Protection and Restoration Council (WPRC) charged with developing a California Watershed Protection Program. The WPRC’s primary responsibility is to provide oversight and coordination of State activities related to watershed protection and enhancement, including anadromous salmonid conservation. The third draft of the WPRC State report is ready for public release. It was noted that a pure regulatory process is not the answer, and funding continues to be a problem when wanting to work in the watershed. NMFS and State are addressing this by co-funding two multi-county efforts to do better county level planning for Coho related actions.

• Federal Perspective: Jim Bybee, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) - NMFS recognizes that most watersheds are unique, and any watershed plans need buy-in from the locals. Implementation of the Endangered Species Act is new to NMFS, and because it is a small agency it cannot do it alone. Voluntary actions are essential, and we need to monitor what we’ve accomplished through these programs. He also commented that the biological science is good enough to evaluate the fish protection needed, but the "habitat science" is not as good. Priorities should be based on the areas where work is needed, and who is ready to perform the work.

Federal Clean Water Initiative

• Federal Perspective: Sam Ziegler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The White House released the Clean Water Action Plan on February 19, 1998. It provides a blueprint for several federal agencies, working in cooperation with states, Tribal Nations, and the public, to restore and protect our nation’s waters, and emphasizes a cooperative watershed approach to solving water quality problems. As part of the Plan, a Unified Watershed Assessment will be performed using a collaborative process to identify and prioritize all watersheds in the State. It was noted that more that 50% of water quality problems are from non-point sources.

• State Perspective: Jim Bennett, State Water Resources Control Board. The State Board’s Watershed Management Initiative is comparable to the Clean Water Action Plan because it also sets up a process to prioritize watersheds in response to the 303D process. It also uses a watershed approach. He suggested that we capitalize on the common themes and needs and integrate the programs. He commented that watershed priorities should be based on where locals have matching shares.

A Local Perspective: Clyde Eller, County Supervisor, Del Norte County. Communication is a two way process, and no state agency has asked Del Norte county for input. It is important to recognize that watershed planning and management is a long-term process. The Smith River Advisory Group has been in existence for many years and still meets monthly. The money provided to the counties to lead a five county planning effort has been a good start.

Council comments:

• Use county ordinance process to get public input

• Visit county supervisors offices and get input

• Voluntary efforts will be needed for restoration

• Recognize that county supervisors know the land, know the people, and have access to voluntary sources

• Don’t set up a whole new organizational process--set up better coordination

• "Voluntary" is a misnomer--really trying to be proactive with integrated approaches

• Recognize the "coffee shop syndrome"--people are not convening anymore and bringing issues to local supervisors collectively

• We already know what we need to do--need less plans and more on-the-ground projects.

• Deploy demonstration projects--can’t regulate everywhere

• Education and volunteerism is key--ultimate in voluntary action is to educate and increase prevention activities.

• If you want to bring about change, interact with the people that can bring about that change, such as the county planning directors.

Considerations for the Future - Moderator: Bill Stewart, Chief, CDF Fire and Resource Assessment Program.

The Oregon Biodiversity Project — Sara Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife. The Project has been working since 1994 to develop a statewide strategy to conserve Oregon’s native biological diversity. Administered by the DOW, this collaborative project has involved industry, conservation interests, researchers, and state and federal agencies. Products of the project include: 1) A statewide report that includes an analysis of conservation needs and opportunities by ecoregion, 2) A comprehensive report of incentives and management options for improved stewardship across the managed landscape, and 3) A CD-ROM package that gives users the data and tools they need to perform their own analysis. DOW is interested in promoting this effort throughout the nation. An opportunity exists to apply the same process in California.

Council Action: Ed Hastey directed CBC staff to meet with Sara Vickerman and come back to the Council with recommendations on the feasibility of a California Biodiversity Project.

National Environmental Report Card - Robin O'Malley, Heinz Center, was not able to attend the meeting. Janine Stenback, Resources Agency, provided the overview. At the request of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), The Heinz Center in Washington, D.C. is leading a collaborative effort to design a report card that provides succinct, credible information on the condition of the nation’s ecosystems and on the goods and services they provide. By March1999, a prototype report card will be produced. Development of specific reporting measures for croplands, marine and coastal systems, and forests is currently underway.

Secretary Wheeler, who serves on the Design Committee, is interested in Council participation in the design and implementation of the Report Card. Of particular interest is the development of a Regional Case Study that would focus a more detailed report on one or more of our bioregions. Initial interest has been in the Sacramento Valley and the Central Coast bioregion. Funding and/or a staff person who would serve as project coordinator are needed to accomplish this task.

Council Action: Ed Hastey directed Council members to contact Janine Stenback if they are in a position to assist with the Environmental Report Card project.

Review of the Past Seven Years and Priorities for the Future. Much of the effort in past seven years went into building trust and sharing information. The next challenge is what actions to add to the strategic plan OR whether to stick to goals 1-3 of the work plan. All Council members were surveyed to identify those priorities in the current workplan requiring immediate attention, particularly given a change in State administration in 1999. Improved access to data and information so that it can be used for on-the-ground projects was the dominant theme of the responses. The Council’s Science Coordinating Committee has been asked to make it easier for everyone to obtain information about the State’s environmental resources in support of local planning and management. The second priority was to continue with the regional biodiversity council meetings and promote the Council’s theme of strengthening ties with local government. The third priority was to assist with on-the-ground watershed projects as requested by the leadership in local communities. Depending upon the need, Council support could be in the form of brokering partnerships, providing facilitation, assisting with regulatory streamlining, offering information and analytical support, or sponsoring local forums.

Specific comments from Council members on future priorities:

• Move forward with a California Biodiversity project

• Try to move to more private sector funding assistance

• Consider a value-added focus

• Re-evaluate whether we need to change the composition of the CBC (e.g., include non-governmental representation)

• Importance of partnerships highlighted - focus on private sector

• Need to communicate to our workers at ground level

• Using regional leaders to build the ground linkage with the Council didn't really work--need to try a different approach, such as a joint project

• Market successes in the newsletter

• Nexus between energy, wildlife and biodiversity identified

• Address the difficulty of maintaining budgeted environmental programs

• Utilize staff to better to broaden collaborative efforts--identify key people across regions

• Support regional council meetings

• Provide less exposure of local efforts and more emphasis on specific topical education and more collaboration of government agencies

• Focus on public education for volunteerism

• Pursue a large-scale letting-public-know effort, such as a major publication like the Oregon book

• Compile all of the signed agreements, such as vernal pools, CRMP

• Riparian Habitat Joint Venture, and evaluate their progress (are they functional? strong?)

• Report on their progress at the CBC meetings, also make them available on the web

• Put less emphasis on gathering data or producing publications, instead take the time to find out what value we have to the local people

• Get our regional people working on the local problems, such as a fire project--we can facilitate and encourage our staffs to serve in this role.

• With reductions in agency employees, shift to interagency collaborative efforts

• Give a serious look to what we can give up internally that can be replaced at a regional scale using a collaborative approach

• Need to be tactical and strategic--tactical at the local level and strategic at the regional/statewide scale

• CBC role should be to share successes, point out differences, and develop feedback loops

• Seek regional partners

• Try to foster more of a dialogue in the forums and Council meetings

• Structure meetings to grow collaborative capacity

• Executive Committee needs broader cross section of council representatives

• Develop position statements (if, then) not political statement

• Futuring and strategizing exercises are good

• Consider CBC team building session

• Provide people with quality information

• Paint a more complete picture of the state

• Jointly identify high priority resource areas

• Do a better job in streamlining process, such as 404 permitting

• Take ideas and make some sense out of them

• Get partnerships--local, state, federal--together in crafting protocols

• Provide strategic guidance (e.g., road map) not a cookbook

• Books just go to the library--don’t focus your energies in this direction

• Interact with people to bring about change (e.g., County planning departments and commissions move knowledge and data out to the local governments)

Sara Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife - consider the State of Oregon approach:

• Invest in Watershed Councils (Oregon has over 100)

• Promote a consistent methodology for critical factors

• Don't monitor every project - not good data

• Think through methodologies

• Have it add up to real picture

Hal Salwasser, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station

• Council needs to reflect cultural diversity and needs to include private sector

• Recognize that the working landscape doesn't stop at state line

The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.