MINUTES
Steering/Management Committee Meeting
Fall 2010
Meeting Time/Place: Monday, December 20, 2010 10 am @ Taylorsville Gem
and Mineral Museum. Lunch will be provided. Please RSVP to
gia@plumascounty.org
Meeting Agenda:
10:00 Welcome and Introductions
Started at 10:30 due to inclement weather to give time for people to arrive. See
attached list of attendees.
Review/Approve minutes from June 2010 Steering Committee and
September Management Committee meetings
John Hafen asked for clarification on Sept. 13th minutes, page 2 question
marks in Section 3(b), mid-paragraph had already been clarified and corrected by
Julie Newman; same section, last sentence regarding different DWR and FEMA
floodplain maps; Kevin Pond clarified that some areas have been mapped with
more precision (i.e. American Valley, Spanish Creek); John H. motioned to
approve the June 2010 minutes, and delete the sentence from the Sept. 2010
minutes regarding the floodplain maps and accept as amended, John Kolb
second, all approved. Updated minutes will be uploaded to website. John H.
posed two other questions: status of CA Dept. of Fish and Game (CDFG)
Whirling Disease Study on Yellow Creek and the Headwaters Education 7-day
teacher workshop education proposal. More clarification is needed the CDFG
study, Julie Newman will find out more information. John H. suggested we look
at RAC funding for education proposal, similar to Forestry Institute for Teachers
(FIT) program coordinated by Mike De Lasaux which has been funded by RAC.
Review/ Approve agenda Kevin Pond motioned to approve agenda, John
Hafen second, all approved.
10:15 Watershed Restoration and Water Rights
11:00 Started off with a slide presentation by Jim Wilcox of the history of
watershed restoration and efforts in the Upper Feather River, then opened up for
discussion.
Brian Kingdon asked if pond and plug creates a diversion point or a
wetland with a beneficial use water right? Jim explained that when the CRM first
started doing pond and plug projects, the question of water rights was posed to
the State Water Board. At that time we were told that a water right was not
needed if there was flow through. Water code states that erosion control projects
are not subject to water rights, nor are they considered a water rights violation.
Charlie Neer stated that he can’t build a pond and allow water to flow
through in his field, so how is this different?
Chris Reilly, Indian Valley DWR Water Master gave a basic description of
the Indian Valley Decree (Plumas County, 1950): how allocations and diversions
were set; private lands within Red Clover Valley have water rights described in
the decree, however, this area is outside of the Water Master’s service area
jurisdiction. If changes in Red Clover are affecting landowners in Indian Valley
(IV), the water master would investigate. Decree was based on 1940’s studies
(pre- Antelope Reservoir) using cubic feet per second (cfs) flow data.
Charlie pointed out that when the water stays in the project areas and
doesn’t come down the creek, there is loss from evaporation (ponds) and use by
plants (increased evapotranspiration (ET) from change in plant community), so it
doesn’t come down for downstream users.
Chris and Brian also noted that if all water holders were using their full
allocations/diversions, not everyone would’ve gotten their water these past four
years. For example, Heart K Ranch has not used its allocation for many years.
John Hafen asked is this because of the projects? His understanding is
the projects slow the water down, but don’t take it.
Brian and Charlie responded that no the projects do take water through
evaporation and transpiration.
Jim cited Stanford study by Steve Loheide (find complete study on
www.feather-river-crm.org) -total ET in a sage dominated meadow was 0.6 acrefeet annually versus in a healthy meadow it was 1.4 annually.
Brian stated that if the projects weren’t using any water, than by diverting
and irrigating they aren’t using any water either. Heather Kingdon added that
they are under strict rules. In Aug/Sept. the water stops if it goes down even 1
cfs and they will blame the projects.
John Sheehan added that anecdotal information is good, but we need to
study all the variables. It is difficult to determine what is going on even with the
instrumentation we have. What are the factors at play…fire, projects, climate
conditions, etc. What watershed do we use as a control?
Heather noted that if the creek continues to dry up and they are harmed
economically, they want something in place to ensure they will get their water.
Charlie shared some photos with Jim of Chase Bridge below the Red
Clover/McReynolds project in 2008 when there was no surface water flowing.
Jim explained that historically flows in Red Clover Creek in Aug. and Sept. have
been 1 cfs. Data has shown that this is a losing reach. Even before the project
was constructed there was a loss between the top of the project area and the
bottom.
Charlie noted that now there is no flow. Prior to the project the stream
always flowed out of the valley.
Jim added that beavers have also had a big impact on flows.
Heather asked that they have a safety net; something that would protect
their water rights.
Chris stated that the decree is based on cfs, but there are certain volumes
each user is allowed every year.
Gary Romano of Sierra Valley shared that their water has dried up in the
north part of the valley every year for the past 15 years. May be caused by the
rebuilding of diversions, but there are other factors within the watersheds that are
causing problems.
Bob Farnworth in American Valley also noted that Greenhorn, Estray, and
Squirrel Creeks have been much drier over the past 3-5 years. His upstream
diversion on Greenhorn has not had enough water to irrigate his ranch for the
last five years. Feeder streams on Argentine Peak go dry; feels that the
decrease in snowpack has contributed to less flow.
Leslie Mink added that Sierra Pacific meadow at Williams Loop is severely
downcut and historically was full of beaver dams; restoring that recharge area
could help with downstream flows. By restoring the storage capacity of a
meadow in the headwaters, downstream users will have more late season flows
to irrigate with.
Jim added that 2000-2010 has been a very dry decade. Heather
responded that Lights Creek hasn’t dried up since the Moonlight Fire in 2007.
Leah Wills shared some data recent precipitation and climate data from
PG&E specific to the North Fork Feather River. Since 1960 winter temperatures
have risen 7-9 degrees Fahrenheit in our region. This changes stream flows:
currently 400,000 acre feet less going into Lake Oroville. What happened? More
rain, less snow, overstocked forests are all factors. Big picture- There is no
vested interest in a water right in a degraded system. Our systems are changing.
We need to keep things moving along so in the long term our senior water rights
are protected from demands below Oroville and in the Delta. Current Delta
issues are pushing 50% flow through out to the ocean. The Monterey Agreement
could be the safety net to mitigate short-term changes from projects. The
Agreement gives the County local control over Davis, Antelope, and Frenchman
reservoirs for local benefits. Landowners need to request the Board of
Supervisors to start the process for developing this protection element.
Brian noted that the decree was based on 1940 studies and those flows
are their water rights. Charlie added that it’s all melted off in March/April now,
instead of May/June.
Leah talked about study showing that the ground water coming into Lake
Almanor comes from the Modoc Plateau. We need to ask is the ground water
moving a different direction than the surface water?
Brian stated he wanted to see studies done before more pond and plug
projects were constructed and monitoring in the uplands. Leah responded that
we needed the fingerprint of the water, i.e. isotope studies.
Leslie contributed that the Quincy Library Group hydrology monitoring has
been weak, not enough upland monitoring has been done. Barry Hill, USFS
Regional Hydrologist, is going to do some stream flow monitoring in Red Clover.
Asked if folks had an idea of where they wanted to see studies focused? Would
they like us to monitor stream flows at their diversions?
Heather responded that she wants to see historical flows in Red Clover
and Last Chance. Once these are established, what do they do to ensure their
senior water rights are not jeopardized?
Leah replied that the amount of precipitation has not changed, only the
form (based on rolling average in PG&E study).
Chris asked but what about storm intensity and distribution during the
year?
Jim- It all changed in the 1955 flood. The restoration work is trying to put
the ground back to where it was before the flood, not where it was 10 years ago.
We are getting closer to the conditions when the decree was written.
John Kolb asked if there was a system that wasn’t impacted by projects
that we could monitor and compare? We need a comparison to say anything.
Jim replied that they haven’t been able to find a comparable watershed
with enough similarities.
Terry added that we need to describe the entire watershed to pull all the
pieces together (i.e. roads, streams, etc.), so we can document the system we
are in.
Leah reiterated that the water rights holders needed to put in a request to
the Board of Supervisors to start planning now to protect our region and their
water rights.
Leslie asked Chris where he would like to see more gages? Will discuss
more in the spring.
12:00 Lunch 1:00 pm- Ended discussion and broke for lunch.
1:00
Activating the Executive Committee: Programmatic Agreements This
issue was first discussed at the June meeting. We would like to establish
agreements with the regulatory permitting agencies (Army Corp of
Engineers, State Water Resources Control Board, and CA Dept. of Fish &
Game) to streamline the permitting and environmental documentation
process for restoration projects; would like to be able to do one document
that satisfies all parties. Question posed to Committee was do we need
the Executive Committee to do this? What does the MOU say about the
Executive Committee? Is an Ad Hoc group, convened when needed for
difficult issues. Leah suggested we look at what other groups are doing.
Recently attended a conference “The Summit” in Oct. 2010 where the
Central Coast gave a presentation on this same topic and what they are
doing. If we piggy back on their efforts it will have higher priority in the
eyes of state officials. Can find the presentation on the CA Resources
Agency website. Will look into Central Coast efforts and proceed from
there.
2:00
Program Funding & Projects: Status, Priorities, Proposed (Action) Status
of DOC funding- the Watershed Coordinator position is funded through
June 2011; will be opportunity to ask for extension; enough remaining
funds to extend another 6 months if approved. Submitted an application
with Sierra Institute to fund two half-time positions; grant awards should be
announced in January/February. Is some coordination money in the Prop.
50 grant with DWR via the County; however, we have waited over a year
and have yet to see any reimbursement on this grant.
Proposed projects (see map handouts)- Fitch Canyon: tributary to
Cottonwood Creek. Request from landowner given to Feather River RCD.
RCD approved recommendation to the FRCRM to consider for a project.
Landowners have contacted the NRCS. They are not ag producers,
interested in improving wildlife habitat. Stream channel is 18” to 3 feet
downcut, larger on USFS reach (6-7 feet).
Mountain Meadows Projects: Three separate project areas- Stroing
Ranch; Mtn. Meadows Creek; and tributary to Goodrich Creek. Mtn.
Meadows and Goodrich owned by Beatty. All channels are downcut.
They want to restore the meadows. Restoration technique would probably
be pond and plug. Jim met with the landowners and visited the areas
where assistance is being requested. Beatty property manager is on the
Honey Lake RCD. Jim asked if the RCD wanted to take the lead and the
CRM could provide technical assistance; have not heard back from the
landowners in this regard. Terry has done some preliminary
reconnaissance cross-sections to get an idea for a conceptual design and
cost estimate to give to landowner on the Stroing Ranch; stream reach is
1.5 miles long. Goodrich tributary is not perennial. John Hafen asked
about a fishing preserve? CRM staff was not aware of a fishing preserve,
will ask landowner. Committee was asked to vote on accepting projects
for the CRM to work on. John Hafen and others stated they would like to
see more information including pictures, cost estimates, and potential
landowner match before the Committee approves the projects. Vote was
tabled until next meeting at which time more information will be provided.
CRM tentative project schedule is as follows (*dependent on
securing project funding):
2011: Dotta Canyon*, Yellow Creek*, Greenhorn, and Spanish Creek*
2012: Last Chance II, Meadow View/Rowland*, Sulphur-Barry*, Spanish*
2013: Last Chance II, Sulphur-Barry*
3:00
State Water Contractor Tour; PG&E NFFR Report Leah shared PG&E
data during water rights discussion. There are two PG&E reports on the
Sierra Institute website, under ABWAC. Sierra Institute is having another
meeting with a speaker from DWR about state precipitation issues in
January.
3:15
CASGEM – DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program (see
program summary handout) Brian Morris took the idea to the Board of
Supervisors. County agreed to be lead agency. What this means right
now we have no idea.
3:45
State Water Plan Update- Watershed Resource Management Strategy
(RMS): Strategic Plan (Vol. 1) to include watershed management actions,
specifically Sierra meadow restoration. Upper Feather may be used as a
“case study” for this topic in Vol. 1. John Mills is on a committee for the
State Water Plan Update and suggested the UFR be used as a case study
for the Strategic Plan regarding meadow restoration. They need to
address each strategy, but will most likely use the Feather River to look at
Meadow Strategy. The state plan has numerous strategies. We will need
to address all of them in our Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
(IRWMP) in order to apply for grant monies in August. Plan to have
meeting this winter to figure out what our strategies are, what the water
rights issues are, etc.
4:00 Adjourn Meeting John Hafen stated he would like to see more frequent
Management Committee meetings. Plan to try and meet at least every other
month. Gia will send out tentative meeting schedule for 2011.
Reasonable Accommodations: In compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the Feather River Coordinated Resource Management Watershed
Coordinator at (530) 283-3739, ext. 107.
Meeting Attendees:
Heather Kingdon, Indian Valley Rancher
Brian Kingdon, UFRWG Director & Mill Race President
Charles Neer, Indian Valley Rancher
Phil Noia, Feather River RCD President
Bob Farnworth, Feather River RCD
Julie Newman, CA Dept. of Fish and Game
Monte Smith, Indian Valley Rancher
Ryan Nupen, Plumas National Forest
John Sheehan, Plumas Corporation Executive Director
Emily Creely, Sierra Institute Watershed Coordinator
John Hafen, Trout Unlimited Feather River Chapter
Leah Wills, Plumas County
John Kolb, Plumas County Public Works Dept.
Gary Romano, Sierra Valley RCD
Kevin Pond, Dept. of Water Resources
Chris Reilly, Dept. of Water Resources Indian Valley Water Master
Kara Rockett, CRM Monitoring Coordinator
Terry Benoit, CRM Project Manager
Leslie Mink, CRM Project Manager
Jim Wilcox, CRM Program & Project Manager
Gia Martynn, CRM Watershed Coordinator
Terri Rust, CRM Watershed Tech and Feather River RCD