Meeting Time/Place: Monday, December 20, Taylorsville Gem and Mineral Museum. Lunch will be provided. Please RSVP to gia@plumascounty.

Transcription

1 MINUTES Steering/Management Committee Meeting Fall 2010 Meeting Time/Place: Monday, December 20, 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. 13 th 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 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

2 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 -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.

3 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 has been a very dry decade. Heather responded that Lights Creek hasn t dried up since the Moonlight Fire in 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).

4 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 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,

5 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.

6 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 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) , ext 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