TEHAMA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
2 Sutter Street, Suite D, Red Bluff, California 96080
Regular Meeting
Date September 18, 2012
Time: 8:30 AM
Place: USDA Service Center
2 Sutter St, Suite D, Red Bluff
I. Introductions: Meeting called to order by Ernest White at 8:30 a.m.

Directors Present: Anne Read, Ryan Sale, Jack Bramhall, Walt Williams, and Ernest White

Directors Absent: None

Associate Directors Present: None

Staff Present: Vicky Dawley, Kris Lamkin, Mike Marvier, Tom McCubbins, and Rose Calzontzi

NRCS Staff Present: Larry Branham

Visitors Present: None
II. Public Communications: None
III. Minutes: Motion to approve as corrected.
 Corrections include:
 Item I: Remove extra space in Spring Groteguth’s last name.
 Item IVB: Clarify motion put forth regarding rent increase.
 Item VII, III: Change “reports” to “reported” under staff reports.



Motion: A. Read
Second: R. Sale
Vote: Unanimous
IV. Action Items
A. Contract with Cottonwood Creek Watershed Group (CCWG) to complete Cottonwood Creek Invasives
Removal Project: Motion to approve contract with CCWG and project budget subject to minor modifications
totaling less than 5% of total budget.
 A. Read left the meeting at approximately 8:45 a.m. Being a landowner with parcels in the project site,
she did not participate in the discussion regarding the contract with CCWG.
 R. Sale voiced concerns about whether CCWG would pay the RCD in a timely manner. Vieva
Swearingen, grant administrator for CCWG, responded that yes, the RCD would be paid in a timely
manner, and suggested that invoices be sent via email.
 V. Dawley asked for clarification from V. Swearingen. Would Vieva remain as the contact for the
contract? V. Swearingen responded, yes, she is the contact, but her title needs to be changed in the
contract from “Executive Director” to Grant Administrator.”
 J. Bramhall asked why the dollar amounts on the original Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) contract with
CCWG does not match the dollar amount on the TCRCD contract with CCWG. V. Dawley responded
that the amounts do not match because the original FWS contract was modified. V. Swearingen
confirmed that the modification added more money to the contract because an additional 5 miles of
treatments were added to the project scope.
Times listed on the agenda are estimates and are used for planning purposes only. Times for Public Hearings will be specific.
Any written materials related to an open session item on this agenda that are submitted to the Tehama County RCD less than 72 hours
prior to the Board meeting, and that are not exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act, will promptly be made available for
public inspection at the Tehama County RCD Office, 2 Sutter Street, Suite D, Red Bluff, California, during normal business hours.
TEHAMA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
2 Sutter Street, Suite D, Red Bluff, California 96080







V. Swearingen added that all permits are in place for the work specified in the contract.
M. Marvier asked about the landowner permissions obtained by CCWG. V. Swearingen stated that
CCWG received some permissions in writing, some permissions were verbal, some landowners denied
permission, and other landowners did not respond one way or another. V. Dawley asked whether there is
a list specifically showing the landowners who have said “yes” or “no” to project work being done on
their property. V. Swearingen replied, yes, there is a spreadsheet showing this.
Regarding the budget, V. Swearingen stated that the proposed budget is close, but the amount budgeted
for CCWG’s insurance needs to be doubled to $1100.00 in order to carry the insurance through to
September 2013.
R. Sale recommends the project budget be approved, subject to minor modifications that are less than 5%
of the total budget.
Motion: W. Williams
Second: J. Bramhall
Vote: Passed
A. Read returned to meeting after item IV A was discussed and voted upon.
B. Resolution 12-5: Ponderosa Way Erosion Control and Sediment Delivery Prevention Plan: Motion
to approve as presented.
 Motion: A. Read
 Second: R. Sale
 Vote: Unanimous
V. Finance
A. Finance Reports: Motion to approve as presented.
 Finance committee met at 7:45 a.m.
 R. Sale reports that a significant amount of open invoices have been paid and the district’s cash
position is good.



VI.
Warrant orders to be paid in September: Motion to approve as presented.



VII.
Motion: A. Read
Second: W. Williams
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: A. Read
Second: R. Sale
Vote: Unanimous
Discussion/Report Items
A. NRCS Staff Report
 Larry Branham reported:
 Fiscal year 2013 program is moving along.
Times listed on the agenda are estimates and are used for planning purposes only. Times for Public Hearings will be specific.
Any written materials related to an open session item on this agenda that are submitted to the Tehama County RCD less than 72 hours
prior to the Board meeting, and that are not exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act, will promptly be made available for
public inspection at the Tehama County RCD Office, 2 Sutter Street, Suite D, Red Bluff, California, during normal business hours.
TEHAMA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
2 Sutter Street, Suite D, Red Bluff, California 96080
 NRCS has an interest in getting projects implemented in the areas affected by the Ponderosa
fire.
B. District Manager Report: Nothing to report other than what was on the agenda.
C. TCRCD Staff Reports
 Tom McCubbins reported:
 Child’s Meadow project: Pacific Watershed Associates wrote the work scope in the grant
proposal submitted to the Sierra Nevada Conservancy so they are the logical choice to
complete the work. The board, however, will need to approve a sole source justification. A.
Read asked for clarification about whether this grant funds on the ground work or the
planning phase of the project. T. McCubbins clarified that the grant funds the design and
CEQA work for the project.
 Antelope Creek: Kevin Greer has been talking with landowners explaining the work we are
doing. One landowner has expressed concerns about what may be found on his property,
and has declined the RCD access to his property. Tom has prepared an access agreement
which addresses his concerns and Stillwater Associates have spoken with him about the
project work. Tom hopes the landowner will sign the agreement.
 Battle Creek Integrated Weed Plan is moving along. Tom hopes to get support and match
for project.
 Eagle Peak CEQA has been submitted for review and the comment period closes at the end
of the month.

Mike Marvier reported:
 Forward Road: Lost about 70% of the project area in the fire. On the east side near Shasta
Daisy Vineyard, there is about 1 mile of green left. Cody is heading up there today and will
be there every day for the remainder of the week. Calls are into Tehama County Public
Works and Sierra Pacific Industries to see if they have plans to work up there. We will
need to think of how we are going to re-do the grant now that a large portion of the project
area is gone. Dan Lang with the CA Fire Safe Council has given us leeway in the grant but
we need to put a plan together before we get the go ahead from the Fire Safe Council in
writing. W. Williams asked whether there is any opportunity for us to get involved with
landscape modification work, such as hand prepping to allow mowers to do clean-up work.
Mike responded that most of the land that burned in our project area belongs to SPI and
they are handling clean-up work, and there is a problem with right-of-way. On the north
end of Ponderosa, we may be able to help clean up property, but we can’t get crews to
work on private property unless we can show that it is a benefit to the community at large.
 There is a tentative start date of Monday, September 24 for Boondocks. The start date will
be confirmed by Wednesday.
 Mineral project is ready to go.
 Eagle Peak CEQA is in public comment phase. 1/3 – 1/2 landowners are on board. BLM
has not come on board because the property in the project area has been deemed disposable
and they do not want to spend any money on it.
 Patton Mills fuel break is on track to be funded by Tehama RAC.
 East Sand Slough: 1600 permit has been submitted, should be ready to go in 2-3 weeks. A.
Read asked about the trees in the project area that are dying, and whether we will be using
herbicide on the blackberries that are there. Mike responded that not all of the trees that
Times listed on the agenda are estimates and are used for planning purposes only. Times for Public Hearings will be specific.
Any written materials related to an open session item on this agenda that are submitted to the Tehama County RCD less than 72 hours
prior to the Board meeting, and that are not exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act, will promptly be made available for
public inspection at the Tehama County RCD Office, 2 Sutter Street, Suite D, Red Bluff, California, during normal business hours.
TEHAMA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
2 Sutter Street, Suite D, Red Bluff, California 96080
look like they are in bad shape are dying. Most of them are just going dormant. The project
does not call for the use of herbicide, only the thinning of understory and the removal of
ladder fuels and thick brush.
D. Land Use Reports: Nothing to report at this time.
E. Other Reports: No other reports at this time.
F. Board of Directors Comments
 Walt Williams commented:
 Will not be attending October meeting.

Jack Bramhall commented:
 There will be a meeting of the Shingletown Fire Safe Council on October 20 at Black Butte
School.
VIII. Correspondence: See agenda and correspondence list.
IX. District Manager Performance Evaluation: Evaluation is tabled until next month’s meeting.
X.Next Meeting Dates:
Regular Meeting, October 16, 2012
Finance Committee October 16, 2012
XI. Adjourn: Meeting adjourned at 10:19 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Rose Calzontzi
Watershed Coordinator
Anne Read
Board Secretary
Times listed on the agenda are estimates and are used for planning purposes only. Times for Public Hearings will be specific.
Any written materials related to an open session item on this agenda that are submitted to the Tehama County RCD less than 72 hours
prior to the Board meeting, and that are not exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act, will promptly be made available for
public inspection at the Tehama County RCD Office, 2 Sutter Street, Suite D, Red Bluff, California, during normal business hours.