California Watershed Management Forums

FORUM ·1 SUMMARY

September 1, 1999

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS - Dennis Pendleton, UCD and Sari Sommarstrom, WMC

·                   Not everybody is here that is working on watershed issues. The idea was to try to keep the group representative yet small to facilitate discussion.

·                   We're not here to discuss technical issues or federal lands and agencies, as important as they are.

·                   We're here to initiate discussion about state and local watershed management in California among a broad, diverse group of knowledgeable people.

·                   We're here to look at the big picture together, to get beyond our parochial in-state views by looking at other state programs, and to see what's in common across this state.

CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE - Mary Nichols, Secretary of the Resources Agency

·                   I'm among many people that feel it would be a good idea if we have a unified state policy of watershed management and protection to clarify what expectations I and others should have with local and state efforts.

·                   A framework for a watershed planning program should include five principles: 1) an assessment (problem identification, data gathering, information system), 2) development of a plan (goals, measurement of efforts to track targets), 3) implementation of the plan, 4) monitoring and evaluation of success (to address skeptics too); 5) outreach and education. An official guidance document to help local efforts might make a big difference.

·                   To advance watershed efforts in California, I have done the following:

1) Asked the California Biodiversity Council to be the leadership role in advancing the agenda on watersheds. Principles and themes were endorsed by the CBC at their last meeting. A watershed agenda document is needed to describe the different kinds of watershed efforts around the state.

2) Talked with watershed stakeholders, who want a Point of Contact with state agencies and teams. We need ways to focus local access to the State; now, watershed tasks get added on to core workload for state employees and they don't have time for more tasks.

3) Worked closely with Secretary Winston Hickox of Cal/EPA, as we need to speak with one voice and have our departments working together.

4) Worked with CAL/FED - Watershed management program is not as central as other programs, like Ecosystem Restoration.

5) Continued Coastal Salmon restoration efforts - Watershed planning is ongoing and is not an alternative to but in response to salmon listings.

6) Involved staff in other watershed issues: San Joaquin River water quality, FERC relicensing in the Sierra Nevada, Southern California and urban concerns; a new conservancy for the Los Angeles / San Gabriel watershed, Salton Sea, Lake Tahoe. Many of these areas have a long history of conflict and distrust.

·                   I'm working across the agency to improve the level of science, not just for watershed plans, but for all of our activities.

Feedback on California Remarks from Written Comments

·                    Excellent and honest report of where CA is. I hope that the future holds more opportunity for watershed groups to benefit from State organization and responsibility.

·                    Not a concept of bottom-up, but appears to be movement at agency level toward a watershed management plan.

·                    Ideas that might work for CA: 1) A state entity that collects all monitored information from watersheds; 2) riparian tax credits, conservation enhancement tax credits, industry tax credits (could be an excellent state program); 3) no legislative watershed framework/ structure - maybe suggested only; state commitment to watershed coordinators.

·                    Like the idea that the Biodiversity Council is being involved in watershed planning.

·                    Good to get Mary's view and commitment to establishing a state framework to support local watershed partnerships

·                    What is the "structure" for watershed management for California? Who will define it? Strictly State?

·                    What is the Resource Agency's goal for watershed management? How will Department organizations be made to better fulfill this goal? Support for local funding --approaches (special assessment district, State)

·                    Need to establish a process / structure for support - technically, $ and enthusiasm

·                    We need to include local floodplain administrations in watershed team efforts. They have responsibility for keeping inappropriate developments out of the floodplain. Desirable to coordinate watershed efforts with the Floodplain Management Association (CA) C which is an association of local floodplain administrations. Also, need to maintain coordination with DWR's FPM Program, which serves as the State FPM coordinating agency.

·                    The Secretary's goals are great but will not happen in the bureaucratic atmosphere in the Resources Agency and the RWQCBs.

·                    Support the ideas and framework needs. Hard to get a local leadership effort on private land for CA. This needs to be watershed, water quality, watershed health, etc.

MASSACHUSETTS - Bob Durand, Secretary of Environmental Affairs

‚                   Involve the local constituencies of business, municipal, environmental interests to build a consensus around river issues, and you will build an army to advocate for better watershed management, as we did with our  River Protection Act.

‚                   Massachusetts Watershed Initiative links government to the grassroots efforts and is a results-oriented program that protects and restores natural resources and ecosystems on a watershed basis. The main theme is "Communities Connected by Water".

‚                   Program is based on 27 action-oriented watershed teams which include watershed associations, conservation organizations, municipal board members, businesses, and field staff from state and federal agencies. Each watershed led by its own needs.

‚                   We provide capacity-building grants for help get watershed associations off the ground - a two year grant of $50,000.

‚                   Economies of scale with multiple partners is a benefit, as well as helping the local economy like the shellfish industry.

‚                   We've redirected State Revolving Funds (SRF) to allow for the clean recharge of treated sewage in same groundwater basin, so we're not losing stream flow in the watershed.

‚                   Full-time state watershed team leaders act as the Secretary's eyes and ears across the state, make sure important projects don't fall through the cracks, and represent the "best and the brightest" of the different agencies. They're actively involved in the communities within the watershed, and know the municipal and business leaders.

‚                   We have a roundtable discussion with my department heads, meeting on a regular basis to make sure they're implementing the priorities of the watershed teams. You have to make it a priority or your results will show it's not.

‚                   Community Preservation Initiative asks communities whether they have the water supply to support their anticipated kind of growth; our agencies provide technical training to municipalities through a circuit rider program to help them with these questions.

‚                   Environmental Education Initiative includes a slide show so all kids know their watershed address; biology and chemistry classes evaluate the watershed quality.

MASSACHUSETTS - Bob O'Connor, Director of Watershed Management, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs

‚                   The key to the whole Massachusetts' program is that it's a local program, getting at local solutions to local problems - they come from the people "with their feet in the water".

‚                   Our 27 designated watersheds range from 100 to 400 square miles, but I would argue that even 100 sq. mi. may be too big a watershed since you really need to work at the level where the problems really matter to the people.

‚                   Land use is becoming a critical issue since everyone wants large lots, but we're using up the land at six times the rate of our population growth that way.

‚                   We're a very home-rule state, with towns having a lot of control, so we have to work on a local level if we're going to have any progress.

‚                   One of the goals of our program is to combine technical expertise, local knowledge, and energy; we're just trying to pool things that we already have and be a little bit more efficient, trying to leverage resources from other areas as well.

‚                   With our 27 teams, we have 540 team members that are really the guts of this program (state field employees, watershed associations, community officials, regional planning organizations, nonprofit groups, federal agencies, and a few businesses). Plus we have 60 very local stream teams doing surveys of their streams and coming up with solutions.

‚                   Geographic and bureaucratic barriers are breaking down. Teams are getting towns and agencies to work together with each other where they haven't before.

‚                   To help organize the five agencies in EOEA, we put the watersheds on a five-year cycle: Year 1 - Outreach; Year 2 - Research and monitoring of water quality, quantity, habitat, fish; Year 3 - Assessment of all information to identify problems and their sources (to help with 303(d) listed streams too); Year 4 - Planning (five year, simple plan that focuses on the top 3-4 priorities and what can be done) and Implementation; Year 5 - Evaluation.

‚                   Volunteers are doing a lot of the work out there. State has a volunteer monitoring grant program, with over 100 active groups. Grants require a 1:1 match.

‚                   Corporate Wetlands Restoration Program has corporations adopting wetlands to be restored, getting action done and credit for it.

‚                   Handouts: "Massachusetts Watershed Initiative - Program Overview" (13 p.), EOEA organization chart, Watershed Schedule, and "Communities Connected by Water" brochure

MASSACHUSETTS - Ed Himlan, Executive Director, Massachusetts Watershed Coalition

‚                   The watershed approach in Massachusetts didn't just happen in the past six years, but has  been happening for over 50 years when the first citizen initiatives began in the western part of the state.

‚                   By 1990, almost every watershed had groups, which is when we formed the Watershed Coalition. Its intent was to strengthen their work. That in turn led to the Watershed Initiative, which was a joint effort between the grassroots and the agencies.

‚                   To get the Watershed Initiative done, it took about 40 people who argued for 2 2 years; it would've gone faster with consensus building and facilitation at the start.

‚                   After the Initiative, we have a lot more groups and a lot more capability. Now even smaller groups like stream teams are forming in sub-watersheds.

‚                   Each of the 27 watersheds has a Watershed Community Council with various stakeholders represented. We've also got 351 cities and towns and over a 1,000 organizations.

‚                   The key thing is helping to make better decisions at the local level. Local decisions have the most (90%) impact on our watersheds, not state or federal decisions (pie chart).

‚                   Handout: AFour Corners...Report: Community Based Watershed Organizations in Massachusetts" by Ed Himlan (7 p.).

Question and Answer Responses by Massachusetts Panel:

‚                   No legislative direction was given about the makeup of a local watershed council; that is decided in collaboration at the local level with the state agencies.

‚                   Legislature contributed $4 million directly to the Initiative this year for capacity building grants, technical assistance, studies, community grants. Other agency funds also contribute indirectly.

‚                   When we advocated the Rivers Protection Act, we went watershed by watershed, overlaying watershed and state senate district boundaries so we could target senate districts by watersheds they were in. It was a very successful campaign.

‚                   There's real coordination between upper watershed efforts and Boston Harbor. Secretary Durand also chairs the agency in charge of cleaning up the Harbor.

‚                   River Restore Program is also trying to remove old industrial mill dams that aren't needed anymore but are blocking fish passage.

‚                   AA river is as strong as its tributaries", so all of the stream teams and councils are important.

‚                   EOEA has a full-time person to be liaison between that agency and the University of Massachusetts to coordinate research better; also some universities adopt their watershed, or form a Watershed Institute with different departments.

‚                   The teams try to use consensus decision-making, but it varies by team. The team leader's job is to try to bring in many parties and to get them to agree. They're soon going through a two day dispute resolution training session so they can get involved where there's tough disputes.

‚                   Critical mass came together to get Initiative working when the Coalition formed about 1993-94, and was allowed to be equal at the table when designing the strategy with the Legislative leaders, the agencies, and the former Secretary of Environmental Affairs Trudy Coxe. There were a lot of turf issues and to some extent there still are. But the Watershed Round Table is helping a lot.

‚                   Secretary has his Green Team (keep it green)  and Clean Team (pollution clean up).

‚                   Clarified that there are no priority watersheds in the state, only priority projects. They refused to pick priority watersheds under the Clean Water Action Plan saying that this is a statewide program that they're in and all of their watersheds are important.

‚                   Over 1,000 priorities were identified but only top 135 of these were funded by the state program last year.

Verbal Comments on Massachusetts Presentation by Audience

(What did you find interesting? What ideas might work in California?)

C                    Important to have team leaders whose life depends on communication between state and local levels

C                    Would like to see similar support in California in helping assist locally staffed councils

C                    Cash is king and local support critical

C                    Local field staff need to have a vehicle to get info up to those making real mgt. decisions

C                    One size doesn't fit all - no single template imposed on all

C                    Success measures: new laws and policy coming from the ground (stream team)

C                    Regional teams going out and speaking in the community is absolutely fantastic

C                    Call for volunteer public administration

C                    Issue of future development -- build out analysis

C                    Need to look at alternative development patterns (livable, sustainable communities)

C                    Resources for watershed councils

C                    Regional teams to focus on an acre to develop plans and monitor multiple expertise

C                    State funding / seed money to watershed councils to get them going is critically important

C                    Funding goal of $10/ac like Massachusetts has

C                    Watershed Team organizing locals

C                    Set-back law

C                    Can CA come up with one agreed-upon structure?

C                    How to get funding decisions made at local level?

Written Feedback on Massachusetts Presentation by Participants

C                   Good presentation of what is happening. Very different and valuable point of view with useful ideas for the West, esp. water use projection

C                   The best. But didn't get a sense of how they convince their agency types to work in a bottom-up process. Important piece of Mass. success is probably due to leadership of Sec. Durand when he was a leader of the Legislature and now the head of the agency

C                   Interesting presentation. Oregon's watershed program is more applicable to California as we share many similarities. Teams: Team leaders could be a good idea if voluntary. Visiting with the Mass. Presenter, I learned that this is the case in Mass. - voluntary.

C                   Legislative Districts designed around watershed regions - another way to bring about continuity, or at the very least educational material that depict current districts comparted to watersheds and their representatives.

C                   Appreciated focus on a stakeholder process that encourages participation by all possible parties (not just the traditional agencies, env. group involvement). In CA, more hours and funding need to be focused on involving all possible local stakeholders. (Excellent science and agency involvement alone cannot get to successful watershed solutions.) Grant funding - Need to address "competitive" nature of funding request processes. How do you maintain enthusiasm at the local level when you have to deny funding to so many projects on an annual basis (an often times demoralizing process for local groups)?

C                   Difficult to compare to CA because of size / scale.

C                   Dynamic leadership at state level is critical. The idea of team leaders who have attributes of great communication skills as well as organizational skills and who are the conduit for communicating the grassroots' voice upward.

C                   1) Create incentives for completing a local watershed plan - connecting SRF priorities to completed plans - SRF offers a huge amount of funds available to implement water quality improvement projects. These funds ($100s of millions) can be used for NPS projects and other types. 2) Team leaders - good concept - if MA has 20, CA may need 20 per Regional Board. 3) Conduct "build-out" analysis of a project 20 years out, identify potential impacts, promote alternative development patterns.

C                   Exciting, esp. from public participation/ education standpoint. Population density helps - small watersheds with intensive recreational use. Quality of life drives process there.

C                   The entire structure of the Watershed Initiative is an interesting model to examine what might fit for California. Transferrable ideas should include use of volunteer monitors in a more formal way; development of the 5-year plans for watersheds; the idea that all watersheds are created equal - no "priority watersheds"; funding availability for state, regional, and local projects. Basically, the ground-up approach needs to be advocated for here in California. Some very good ideas that should be looked at by our Resources Agency.

C                   The Coalition (NGO) was the impetus for creating the critical legislative mass initiating 4 watershed initiatives: biodiversity, community preservation, environmental education, and watershed initiatives.

C                   Works best in "confined" space. Cannot apply to Western states.

C                  " True advocacy at the local level." Each watershed is led by its local watershed needs. "Env. Zoning approach" with SRF to pay. State staff reorganized by watershed, with leads for each. Build analysis to 2020 - do you have water supply to complete build-out.

C                   It was good to see the progress and how they have dealt with very stringent issues. And see the state support the program.

C                   Impressed by the coordination used in addressing their resource concerns.

C                   Specifically make capacity-building grants available to RCDs and other community-led groups that help motivate, organize and lead watershed planning and implementation group efforts.

C                   Units are too small.

C                   1) Like and believe the local leadership method could work in CA; 2) Support of a State level of $4 million and the agency support is vital; 3) Feel the idea of a State Council could be used in CA under the Resources Agency. Involve the departments. 4) Idea of capacity building grants to existing groups ($50,000) is excellent.

OREGON - Bill Bradbury, "Steps to Enacting the Oregon Watershed Approach", Executive Director, For the Sake of the Salmon

‚                   Oregon supports watershed councils and watershed health to the tune of $35 million over the next two years.

‚                   Watershed councils are officially recognized in state law - about 90 at present. Voluntary, collaborative efforts are a cornerstone of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Water Quality.

‚                   This "watershed infrastructure" did not spring to life suddenly but evolved over the last 20 years, during a period when I served in the Legislature for 15 years.

‚                   Back in 1981, I introduced the Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program (STEP) as a bill to enable citizen volunteers to help raise fish. We learned that citizens working collaboratively with government yield results far beyond what agencies can do by themselves; we also learned that salmon problems are more complex than isolated fish rearing or habitat projects can ever solve.

‚                   In 1987, the State of Oregon started a program called the Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board (GWEB) to fund interesting collaborations focused on watershed improvements. A typical project brought Oregon Trout and Oregon Cattlemen together to voluntarily improve pasture management, a win/win case; in the State Capital, these two groups disagree about almost everything, but on the ground they worked well together.

‚                   In 1993, salmon and watershed health were successfully converged by the Legislature into the Watershed Health Pilot Program due to: 1) success with STEP and GWEB; 2) watershed councils offered the ultimate local control approach to a problem; and 3) I was Senate President and this issue was clearly my top priority, and that's the way things work in the Legislature (sometimes).

‚                   The 1993 law was started with $10 million and required that locally formed watershed councils be broadly representative of all the interests, meaning most interests need to be represented on the council, with no major interest left out.

‚                   In 1995, local government recognition of watershed councils replaced state approval of local council composition. In retrospect, I think it was really good to force the issue of multi-stakeholder representation in the first two years and it has since worked well to have local government approval as almost all councils are now very diverse and representative.

‚                   When Gov. Kitzhaber came into office in 1995, the Watershed Health Program was expanded by the Legislature to be statewide, but with less state government involvement in the makeup of local watershed councils. The Governor recognized that 2/3 of coho habitat in Oregon is on private land and that we needed to find a way to voluntarily involve landowners.

‚                   Oregon is seeking not just a sustainable level of salmon, but a higher, harvestable level.

‚                   The major lesson we learned is that citizens never like to be told what to do but they do like to participate in a process that they can directly influence at the local level. >Random acts of kindness' are also not sufficient to achieve watershed health.

‚                   Handouts: "A River Runs Through It" by Bill Bradbury (3 p.)

OREGON - Louise Solliday, Chair, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board and Governor's Watershed Advisor

‚                   I think we have learned quite a bit from our experience having sort of made this up as we've gone along for the last 10-12 years trying to figure out what does work and what does not work.

‚                   We're learning that we have too many watershed councils at 90, as they are competing for limited sources of funds and technical assistance from our state agencies

‚                  #1 Lesson - We should have defined our watershed unit at the beginning of our program: we did not, Washington State did. We're now getting the "balkanization" of watersheds by increasing the number of groups that we need to provide care and nurturing for. California should think about what this might mean in terms of your resources and state staff available to help with those groups.

‚                  #2 - We sent these groups off and said "Do good things". The 1995 legislation was permissive in that it did not require anything: no framework for goals, priorities, or benchmarks. Sometimes the power of permissiveness is much stronger than the power of regulation, we thought. I would urge folks to think about how to develop those state-wide goals, priorities and benchmarks so that folks have a framework for the work that they're doing that is building to something bigger and that is also going to accomplish and achieve the state's objectives at the same time as achieving those local goals and objectives.

‚                   #3 - We didn't have good tools to give them to do the work that we were asking them to do. We asked them to do watershed assessments, watershed action plans, monitoring, but provided no tools, so the early councils had to make up their own methods. The health of each watershed was determined by different methods of each council. Oregon now has a standardized watershed assessment methodology developed specifically for local watershed councils and geared towards a whole set of budget ranges. We also have a monitoring manual with a standardized code of protocols for various budgets, and a habitat restoration guide with examples of different kinds of projects to help standardize techniques. An action plan manual is being developed based on the assessment manual.

‚                   Instead of random acts of kindness, we're now making strategic investments by targeting our funds better. We require 5-10 years of post-project monitoring to see if the state is getting a return on its investment in terms of improvement to the resource.

‚                   #4 - We've learned that it takes a paid staff to care and nurture and feed these entities. Having a full-time staff for each council helps bring in funding 3-20 times their salary, so that investment is well worth it. An all-volunteer army is not going to get you as far as you want to go. The Legislature was once opposed to funding local staffing but that has changed as they are seeing the return on their minimal investment.

‚                   #5 - This is a huge ecological and social experiment and patience, patience, patience is very important. My experience as an original member of the McKenzie Watershed Council showed to me that the value of that initial agony is huge. The product is the group process going on and the relationships that are being built.

‚                   #6 -How are you going to manage all the new information developed by these councils? We're now at the back end trying to put pieces on a GIS system but we're still playing catch-up with 6-7 years of data.

‚                   #7 - State agencies are overburdened by many legislative mandates already, and now staff is being asked to help these watershed councils and provide technical assistance. Over time, however, the agencies will learn that the watershed approach doing increased assessments, monitoring, and projects will actually expand the capacity of their agencies to get work done. Overlaying each agency's regional boundaries with watershed boundaries creates a very ugly looking map. They still need to deliver watershed services.

‚                   If you're thinking of putting watershed council approval at the local government level, you need to keep reminding folks that this is a watershed program, not a county program and you need to look at ecological boundaries, not political boundaries - which were what got is into this problem to start with.

‚                   We're going to continue to see this program grow with more local citizens engaged. We're not to critical mass yet, particularly in our urban areas. The Willamette Basin represents 2/3 of the population of Oregon alone.

‚                   Some of the older councils have gained legitimacy, while others have not, and that takes time. Some councils are going to want to get into the policy arena, which they have so far stayed out of.

‚                   Oregon is looking at $100-150 million next year from Fed / State / private sources. We still don't work as a funding group together to figure out how we leverage each other's dollars to meet the state, federal, and local priorities as well.

‚                   Now I am beginning to look at how we really integrate healthy watersheds with healthy economies and healthy communities, as all three are dependent on each other.

‚                   Handouts: "The Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board" (brochure); "Legislative Update - OWEB Budget as of July 29, 1999" (2 p.); "House Bill 3225" (2 p.)

OREGON - "Tualatin Watershed Council: Lessons Learned" - Jacqueline Dingfelder, Watershed Program Coordinator, For the Sake of the Salmon

‚                   Watershed councils have no regulatory authority and rely on education and volunteer actions for their goals to be carried out by watershed residents and landowners. They generally run on a consensus based decision-making model. Councils also foster collaboration among divergent watershed interests.

‚                   I was the watershed coordinator for the Tualatin Watershed Council from 1996 to 1998. This watershed is 711 square miles located directly west of the City of Portland and contained 6 counties, 15 cities, about 30 special districts, and 400,000 people. We were the second fastest growing watershed in Oregon. About 93% is private land (timber / ag / urban).

‚                   Water quality was the main driver for the Tualatin; a lawsuit under the Clean Water Act and an early TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) for the river helped get all the groups at the table.

‚                   For two years, the council met to determine membership, create a mission and vision, develop by-laws, and formulate goals and objectives. It was a painful process, but you have to get your house in order to be effective. We also did a strategic planning process to help guide the council's activities over the first three years.

‚                   The Tualatin group wanted sound footing before doing projects, so people would not point at a failed project. Watershed analyses were performed in 1997-98. These recommendations were proposed in the Watershed Action Plan, which had full support and buy-in of all council members. This effort took awhile, but it was finally adopted and published in February 1999.

‚                   Council is now implementing the plan and all of the stakeholder groups play a role in the implementation. We were determined that this plan was going to be a living document and have the chance to go back and reevaluate how its validity. We first had to target our priorities and obtain funding from state, federal, local and private sources.

‚                   Benefits of these grassroots watershed councils include: a) enabling us to work across jurisdictional boundaries and through agency turf; b) being non-partisan and providing a forum to bring management agencies together with land owners and managers; c) offering a bottom-up approach to managing local watershed resources; d) promoting public dialog on key issues; e) focusing on things everyone has in common rather than on differences; f) serving as an educational resource for the community; g) defining and working by consensus; h) finding extensive cooperation around the table that may not be found in other public forums.

‚                   Handout: "Tualatin River Watershed Council: An Overview" by Jacqueline Dingfelder (2 p.)

Question and Answer Responses of Oregon Panel

‚                   Despite skepticism of local watershed councils and consensus processes, it doesn't matter whether you are from ag or timber or the environmental community - what you want to do for watershed health is keep the soil on the land and the water going down instead of across, and that's a huge common area that we all share and that everybody benefits from. You've got to get beyond some of these criticisms. What I've (Solliday) seen is the consensus process does not necessarily lead to the lowest common denominator and you do get quality products out of these groups over time.