California Watershed Management Forums:

REVISITING PROGRESS AND REVISING STRATEGY

 

~ Summary of Forum #5 - May 31, 2001, Davis ~

 

 

Introductions by Dennis Pendleton (UC Davis Extension) and Sari Sommarstrom (Watershed Management Council)

 

¨      The Watershed Management Council has worked closely with UC Davis over the past 2 years to forge a statewide dialogue among diverse interests and agencies on watershed management in California. A four forum series evolved, held between September 1999 and May 2000. The summaries of each forum and the final report can be found on the Council’s website: //www.watershed.org/forums.

¨      We agreed at the end of Forum #4 to come back together in May or June 2001 to review the progress on our recommendations, identify remaining needs, and revise the “12 Steps to Watershed Recovery” as needed.

¨      In addition, our forum series served as the California Regional Watershed Roundtable, one of 13 regions in the U.S. having dialogues. Delegates from these regions will be attending the National Watershed Forum to be held in Arlington, Virginia, on June 28-30, 2001.

¨      Engaging others beyond those of us participating today is very important, since those concerned about applying watershed strategies are still only a small group.

¨      Our objectives today are to: 1) revisit the recommendations of the California Watershed Forums by reviewing progress one year later and revising the strategy as needed, and 2) to discuss ways to best share information by the California delegates to the National Watershed Forum in late June.

 

Maria Rea, Assistant Secretary for Watersheds and Salmon, California Resources Agency

 

¨      Many watershed-related activities have been happening at the state level since the last Forum. Here is a list to measure progress to date:

1.      The North Coast Watershed Assessment Program (NCWAP) has begun, linking five state agencies (CDF, DFG, DMG, RWQCB, and DWR) together in a joint effort to develop watershed assessments for all watersheds in the north coast over the next 7 years.

2.      CALFED has completed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for implementing their Watershed Program Plan (April 4, 2001 final draft). Details will follow in an Implementation Plan.

3.      “State Task Force on Removing Barriers to Restoration on Private Property” was formed last year by Secretary Nichols. Its draft report is almost ready (in 1-2 months).

4.      A $2 million grant program of the Dept. of Conservation awarded funding for Watershed Coordinators with 26 Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) in February 2001.

5.      The Coastal Conservancy came out with a “Watershed Planning Guide” to help local watershed groups.

6.      The California Forest Legacy Program Act passed in 2000, expanding the program’s reach to virtually every county in the state with private forests. This CDF/USFS partnership protects forestlands threatened by development by funding the purchase of forest conservation easements.

7.      The California Biodiversity Council (CBC) endorsed its Watershed Working Group’s (WWG’s) “Best Funding Practices for Watershed Management” paper at their September 2000 meeting.

8.      The Dept. of Fish and Game has distributed Coastal Salmon Recovery funding. A “Fish Passage Task Force” has been working with Caltrans, the counties, and the USFS to improve fish passage at road crossings of streams.

9.      Implementation of AB 2117 (Wayne) is moving forward. Ten (instead of 3) case studies or “projects” were selected and will soon be announced. An Advisory Committee, as a subgroup of the CBC-WWG, will help with recommendations to follow up on the findings of the case study evaluations.

10.  Bond funds from Propositions 12 and 13 are getting delivered for projects. Watershed-based land acquisition is among these efforts.

 

REVISITING “12 STEPS TO WATERSHED RECOVERY IN CALIFORNIA”

 

STEP ONE

1.      Form a statewide coalition/network of local watershed groups.

Create a statewide umbrella organization or coalition of local watershed groups for the purposes of communication, constituency building, informational sharing, and improving their capacity for organizational effectiveness.

Leaders: Laurel Ames, Sierra Nevada Alliance; Lynn Barris, Cherokee Watershed; Allen Harthorn, Sacramento River Watershed Program; Conner Everts, Southern California Watershed Alliance

 

Update by:  Ames & Everts

 

·        2 handouts:  1) California Watershed Network (CWN) Overview of Committee members, Accomplishments, Future Plans; 2) Survey Form of CWN Discussion Issues

·        Steering Committee is the original co-leaders plus Leah Wills of Plumas Corp

·        Advisory Committee has 10 members

·        Accomplishments include drafting a mission statement, objectives, bylaws

·        Using River Network’s online Directory of River and Watershed Organizations as the means for compiling and updating a list of California watershed groups

·        Begun a listserve among the steering and advisory committee members to help with communication

·        Requesting audience today to complete survey form of “CWN Discussion Issues”, to help evaluate the draft objectives, potential advocacy role, and possible service roles.

·        An advocacy role, such as lobbying for watershed policy, funding and legislation, appears to be lacking in California, as based on recent experience with state budget items for watershed efforts.

·        Future plans include an analysis of the services provided by 18 state, regional and national networking organizations to see what gaps exist and where CWN could be of the most help.

 

Audience Questions, Comments, & Responses:

·        How is CWN different from the California CRMP Council? Ca-CRMP primarily serves groups using the CRMP process, though e-news goes to anyone who asks. Staffer Dana Helfer works only half-time. Council’s Board and policy are agency-driven.

·        Why couldn’t the Watershed Management Council (WMC) provide this service? Because WMC is western-region wide (not just California) and cannot be politically active.

·        How can we not duplicate others, but better talk to each other?

·        Sacramento Basin has several umbrella groups at different levels, so why is another umbrella group needed? There’s no one entity statewide to respond to comments or to do lobbying.

·        Huge gap in the San Joaquin Basin, with a real need for better basin-wide communication.

·        Another gap is the eastern slope, with greater ties to Nevada than the Central Valley.

·        A key point is getting landowners to get involved, and not just agencies and large organizations.

·        Mistrust of larger organizations may be a problem, especially when local groups have been doing most restoration work. Can local groups be on your Advisory Board?

·        Will you be going out to directly help people and groups?

 

STEP TWO

2.       Seek endorsement by Governor Davis for the State’s commitment to the watershed approach.

An Executive Order to address the statewide value of the watershed approach would be one means.

Leaders:   Mary Ellen Dick, City of San Jose; Sungnome Madrone, Redwood Community Action Agency; Bob Meacher, RCRC; Martha Davis, Californians and the Land

 

Update by: Rob Shulman, Plumas County

 

·        Getting Gray Davis' attention right now is almost impossible due to the energy crisis, and there seems to be no channel or opportunity that is ripe right now.

·        Decide whether an executive order is the right approach, as it sounds top down rather than bottom up.

·        The administration will probably wait until the AB 2117 watershed study is completed.

·        After the results of the study are presented to the Legislature in January, the Governor could possibly issue the executive order next spring.

·        Another option is a broad-brush policy statement signed by the heads of the different agencies, such as the one by EPA/State of California on water recycling.

 

Audience Questions, Comments, & Responses:

·        Governor Davis was quoted in a 2/1/01 press release about the Dept. of Conservation grants to Resource Conservation Districts: “There’s a real need throughout the state for the coordination of efforts at the local level to improve and protect our watersheds. Everyone lives in a watershed, and the health and vitality of each one is an important measure of the quality of life in California.”

·        Put this quote on the WMC website.

·        Perhaps this step should be merged with Step 5 (MOUs). The issue may not be framed the right way.

·        Soon the state will be moving from an energy crisis to water and fire crises, and then we’ll never be able to get the Governor’s attention, even though watersheds are a linking theme to these issues. 

 

STEP THREE

3.       Support collaborative watershed groups that are community-based.     

a.   Obtain State commitment for assistance with the start-up and continuation of collaborative watershed groups;

b.       Advocate funding for the operation and capacity-building of such groups;

c.        Advance the levels of state and federal technical support for such groups.

Leaders: CA Watershed Network; CA-CRMP; For the Sake of the Salmon; Resources Agency/CalEPA

 

Update by: Ames & Everts

 

·        Step 3-a: State funded RCD watershed coordinators through a $2 million grant program within the Dept. of Conservation. Money runs out 6/30/02, and uncertain whether funding will continue to be earmarked for this program.

·        Non-profit groups are helping with organizational and technical support (e.g.,  Sierra Nevada Alliance, CA- CRMP).

·        For Sake of the Salmon is providing 3 regional coastal watershed coordinators to help local groups both organizationally and technically, via Resources Agency funding.

·        Grant programs of CALFED and Prop. 13 showed an overwhelming response from watershed groups seeking assistance.

·        Demand is greater than supply of funding.

 

Audience Questions, Comments, & Responses:

·        Increasing coordination with existing networking organizations could help in better delivery of services

·        More funding is still needed for technical and organizational assistance

·        Huge / severe need for operational and capacity-building, such as bookkeeping, computers.

·        The Southern California Wetlands Recovery Project is a good model

·        NRCS budget is expected to stay the same for next year, despite increased demand for services (overall, California’s NRCS budget has declined 50% over the past 15 years).

·        Current watershed coordinators are getting overwhelmed by the demands on them from their own group and helping new groups.

·        Little watershed work focusing on agriculture, though Cattleman’s Assoc. is getting a new Watershed Coordinator for their Range Plan, to help with 32 groups.

·        Weakest link is organizational support and capability; trying to survive on project funding overhead for this leads to burnout.

·        Grant-writing can consume groups and lead to burn-out, especially when competition is so fierce and hopes for receiving funds may be false.

·        Needs to be a more sustainable way to survive; government grants take 1 ½-2 years to finally see the money. Huge projects have some organizational skills built in, so there’s a bias towards larger projects, when small scale solutions may be best.

·        Low chance of support for new groups versus existing groups

·        Share coordination among groups, since not enough money for everything they want

·        Mary Jane Forster (formerly on SWRCB) is interested in helping through a Watershed Academy.

 

STEP FOUR

4.      Obtain Legislative endorsement of the State’s commitments.

Through one or more bills, seek necessary authority and funding to carry out the state’s role in its watershed management commitments, including #3 above.

Leaders: Conner Everts, So.Calif. Watershed Alliance; Mike Wellborn, Orange County; Laurel Ames, Sierra Nevada Alliance; RCRC; CSAC

 

Update by: Ames & Everts

 

·        Energy crisis is taking over the Legislature, so many bills have stalled. However, some legislators want to talk about something besides energy.

·        Last year’s original version of AB 2117 (Wayne) should be reviewed to see what could be salvaged.

·        Patterning a bill after CalFed’s MOU to include the state’s commitments as a basis for a statewide program is a good possibility.

·        The key point to Step 4 is a statewide approach: statewide funding source, as compared to different pots for different geographic areas.

·        AB 1192 (Pavley) – water bond “Water Quality and Watershed Protection Act of 2002”, to enhance and refund older programs for urban streams, parkways, and water conservation.

·        AB 104 (Nation)– SF Bay Area & Caltrans’s vehicle tax to address road runoff issues through watershed restoration efforts.

·        SB 816 (Johnson). Mike Wellborn believes that it was launched through the California Coastal Coalition to respond to aggressive enforcement over data that has been produced by watershed collaborations. Here in the urban world, we are under extreme scrutiny. Many of our partners wonder why participate if they will get fined for doing new science.

 

Audience Questions, Comments, & Responses:

·        Does AB 104 have any organizational support? Not yet.

 

STEP FIVE

5.      Coordinate Agency watershed work officially through formal agreements.

Develop and obtain MOUs for Watershed Management that clearly states their commitments to cooperative watershed management in California:

a.        among departments within the Resources Agency

b.       among the State’s cabinet-level agencies

c.   between the State and the Federal resource agencies

d.   between the State and Local governments

e.        between the State and watershed groups

Leaders:  Tom Wehri, CARCD; Mike Wellborn, Orange County; Clay Brandow, CDF; Lisa H. McCann, Central Coast RWQCB

Update by: Tom Wehri, CARCD, and Maria Rea, Resources Agency

·        Handouts: CalFed MOU (2001), Santa Ana River Watershed MOU (2000)

·        CalFed MOU was drafted by lots of folks. It is very general and describes a framework on how committees work and talk with one another. Roles are identified. Maria feels that it is important to have agencies talk to each other, even though the MOU seems bureaucratic.

·        Tom feels that this MOU looks like big agencies talking to big agencies, and we need to bring in local groups into MOUs.

·        State is currently working on a Fish Passage MOU with state and federal agencies; draft is presently circulating.

·        Mike Wellborn wrote (via e-mail) that the Santa Ana MOU was put in place for the Santa Ana River Watershed Group and was signed by everyone involved. State and federal agency reps joined with local folks in essentially granting a “hall pass” for state and federal agencies to work with local government on the range of watershed problems.

 

Audience Questions, Comments, & Responses:

·        Could the CalFed MOU be used as a framework for legislation? It would be one means of codifying agreements and has already been looked at microscopically. It does not include regions outside of the CalFed service area (Coastal, Lahontan regions). Refer this to the Step 4 committee.

·        Yuba MOU had signatories, but the expectations were not met based on substance of what resulted. Make sure that agency reps know what signing means, and that it’s not just a ceremonial process.

·        Other experience showed that the top directors signed, but the field level players didn’t know about it or understand the implications for better coordination. How can the message get trickled down better? Does the State have a policy or procedure about such MOU signings and the commitment down the chain for each agency? Budget Change Proposals (BCPs) are the way departments get technical assistance at the field level. One positive response would be to go out with a road show with the agencies to show that the MOU exists and what it means at the field or local level. CalTrans and Federal Highway Administration (FHA) did something similar that worked pretty well.

·        The California CRMP MOU has 13 signatories, but no funding, so it doesn’t mean much.

·        Local staff can feel that they’re not “paid” to work with local watershed groups. Line staff and new technical assistants now being hired need to work out their roles.

 

STEP SIX

6.      Prepare State watershed handbooks and guidelines.

Develop State manuals to help provide consistency and clear expectations to watershed groups, managers, and restoration practitioners about recommended methods for: watershed assessments, water quality and habitat monitoring, data reporting, and watershed plans.

Leaders:  Russ Henly, CDF; Fraser Shilling, UCD; Rick Kattelmann, WMC; Kallie Kull, FishNet 4 C

 

Update by: Henly, Kattelmann, Kull, and Shilling

·        Handout: “Proposed Process for Developing Statewide Guidelines for Watershed Assessments”

·        There is broad recognition that California needs to develop standard guidelines for carrying out watershed assessments (WA), planning, implementation, and monitoring.

·        We chose to begin with assessments and propose a strategy. During the next 2 months, we’ll serve as an ad hoc steering committee to develop a skeleton proposal for a statewide watershed assessment approach.

·        Potential sources from the state budget include CDF-FRAP, CalFed, Prop. 13, SB 271.

·        State agencies have produced, for the North Coast Watershed Assessment Program, an assessment methods manual to guide their work. It provides folks in North Coast watersheds a blueprint of what the state will be doing in assessment, and they can design what they are doing to best jibe with what the state is doing. [//www.ncwatershed.ca.gov]

·        Many models are out there, but not necessarily for local groups. The Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual is for local groups, but we need one based on California issues with regional examples.

·        Watershed Planning Guidelines: Kate Goodnight from the Coastal Conservancy has developed a step-by-step approach to administering and conducting assessments that will ultimately lead to Enhancement Plans. They are trialing it on the Santa Cruz coast with Fish and Game funding in a number of watersheds. Coastal Watershed Council also conducted a status report for FishNet describing where central coast groups are at in the assessment, planning and implementation phases of watershed restoration.

 

Audience Questions, Comments, & Responses:

·        NMFS has an interest in that the ESA 4(d) rule provides a limitation on take prohibition for habitat restoration work done in accordance with a watershed assessment. However, watershed assessments need to done “consistent with a state-approved, NMFS-endorsed watershed assessment protocol”.

·        Standard protocols also needed for TMDL watersheds.

·        Need to identify who are the users, who are the preparers, and how the WA will be done.

·        Some folks fear only one watershed approach will be allowed for watershed groups. Many groups are trying to do assessments now, and don’t want to have to re-do them.

 

STEP SEVEN

7.      Share state-of-the-art watershed restoration methods & effectiveness.

a.        Hold an annual statewide watershed restoration conference, with a published proceedings to record the products of the event, as well as regional events.

b.       Expand use of field tours throughout the State’s basins.

c.        Develop website sharing of restoration information.

d.       Develop a central listserve for announcements.

Leaders:  Watershed Management Council; Salmonid Restoration Federation;CA-CRMP; For the Sake of the Salmon

 

Update by:  Rick Kattlemann (WMC), Dana Helfer (Ca-CRMP), and Liza Prunuske (FSOS)

 

·        Handout: 4 sub-steps listed with updates of what is happening on each

·        We need more information exchange between groups.

·        Long-term calendar of events is very important so we don’t overlap our watershed events. WMC offers to maintain one on its website.

·        Interest in a California Watershed Restoration Conference: when and where?

·        Coastal example with “Blue Circle Model”: get together among 5 counties in the central coast at least 4 times a year to network informally and have fun!

·        California Watershed Funding Database (CSU Chico project) can be a key site where restoration info can also be shared.

 

Audience Questions, Comments, & Responses:

·        Fear of sharing too much info due to competition for funding. Fear is a direct result of not having enough funds available.

·        Regional sharing, like the Sacramento “ShedHeads” group, is a great networking experience

 

STEP EIGHT

8.      Create pathways for education, communication and outreach about watersheds.

Develop a coordinated approach for improving awareness and understanding of watersheds and for improving involvement in watershed activities. Pursue the proposed Watershed Signing Program.

Leaders:   David Gottleib, RCD of the Santa Monica Mountains; Allen Harthorn, Sacramento River Watershed Program; Mark Hite, CDF; Jacqueline Dingfelder, For the Sake of the Salmon

 

Update by:  Gottleib

 

·        RCDs like to be known as “conservation delivery systems” so outreach is an important part of their process.

·        Santa Monica Mtns RCD has a policy that every grant should have an outreach component, including children.

·        Products include videos, “Watershed Owner’s Manuals”, BMPs for road crews, workshops…

·        For Sake of the Salmon has developed many tools for this step (see website: //www.4sos.org)

 

Audience Questions, Comments, & Responses:

·        “Watershed Signing Program” was initiated by the CBC-Watershed Working Group. A pilot program to put up 8 signs on Highway 101 in the North Coast is being worked out with Caltrans. Signs would say “Entering_____Watershed” at the watershed divide on the highway.

·        Billboards with a common watershed message,  to be built upon by local groups, could be located across the state. See California League of Foundations model, based on a successful marketing study in Michigan.

·        Get statewide watershed map by DWR, showing watershed boundaries, more widely distributed.

·        Sacramento River Watershed Program has done news spots on local news channels. Cost is $5,000 per spot announcement, with a budget of $60,000.

·        See Oregon State University Extension Service’s Watershed Stewardship Education Program as an example of a statewide program geared to watershed groups and urban and rural landowners but tailored to fit local needs. People can become “Master Watershed Stewards”.

·        Add “stories” to #8 as a method of communication and outreach. We need to translate concepts into language everyone can understand.

 

STEP NINE

9.      Establish State Scientific Peer Review Team(s) for watershed management.

Ensure that credible science in watershed management is recognized by the State and included as advisory within state agency grant processes through integrated review and advice by independent team(s) of scientists using an interdisciplinary approach.

Leaders: Cathy Bleier, Resources Agency; Russ Henly, CDF; Rick Kattelmann, WMC; Dennis Heiman, Central Valley RWQCB

 

Update by:  Bleier, Henly, Kattelmann, and Heiman

·        Handout: 3-page framework for discussion (to be revised after today’s discussion)

·        This step seemed to come about because the question was raised, “Is there science involved in watershed restoration and management?”

·        Is the intent for grant review only, or a broader role? What types, when, and what scale?

·        Four potential areas of establishing scientific review processes: 1) assessment, monitoring and design protocols, 2) review of watershed assessment info and products, 3) selection, design & implementation of watershed projects, 4) monitoring or evaluation of program effectiveness.

·        Different scales possible from local to program scale. Independent review seems most desired at broad scale, or program level. Less likely to be requested for local grass-roots’ projects.

·        Examples of  programs with some element of scientific review include: North Coast Watershed Assessment Program, DFG Fish Restoration Grants, CalFed, 319 grants, Prop. 13, Sierra Framework, and Wetlands Recovery Project. CalEPA uses UC scientists for independent review of scientific findings used for proposed new regulations.

·        Could not find a need for a single statewide team for all purposes.

·        Seven areas of potential improvement of science review team processes were identified. 

·        Existing processes might benefit from more disciplines being represented and more people from outside of agencies.

·        WMC could work with UC system to identify list of qualified scientists who might be available for independent review teams or for assisting local groups.

 

Audience Questions, Comments, & Responses:

·        Local groups’ problem is getting funding and then having to hire professional help with design; how to hire a consultant, what to look for in hiring? See For Sake of the Salmon’s website for an article on working with consultants.

·        Grant proposal review process: Staff first works with the groups in coming up with the project, and then staff reviews the proposal along with many others. Too many proposals to review in the office and be assured of technical competency on the ground. Concept is appealing to have technical review first.

·        Issue can be overwhelming; who are the “experts”? National Academy of Science committees have grappled with this issue for a century.

·        Single statewide group cannot be knowledgeable about every place in the state.

·        At least 12 agencies are paying for watershed restoration in California.

·        UC Water Resources Center database: filter to better identify academics and non-academics, experience/ “expertise” versus credentials.

·        Oregon’s Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) for salmon recovery was used to evaluate key scientific issues (e.g., hatcheries), not projects or programs. California still needs to look at the science overall, science that’s not attached to projects.

 

STEP TEN

10.  Promote effective watershed monitoring and project evaluation programs.

Focus on the Big Picture of what is needed for local watershed monitoring and project evaluation and what is needed to help local groups.

Leaders:    Ken Coulter, SWRCB; Marty Gingras, CDFG; Donna Meyers, City of Santa Cruz; Rick Kattelmann, WMC

 

Update by:  Meyers,  Kattelmann, Coulter

·        Handout: 1 page with 4 Questions, 8 Initial Findings, and What Local Groups Need

·        Agencies have different: a)  mandates driving their needs for monitoring, b) fiscal and technical resources, c) data reporting formats, d) Quality Assurance/Quality Control programs for data collection.

·        Need for interagency organization of monitoring data and analysis

·        New tools are available for local watershed groups to access and contribute data

·        Local watershed groups need: consistent monitoring protocols, analytical tools including statistical packages, access to data in usable formats, and methods for contributing to monitoring and data collection efforts.

·        Citizens’ Monitoring Coordinator concept: lack of funds for ambient monitoring, because politically, people are told they shouldn’t go looking for problems.

·        What we need to know is separate problem from data management.

 

Audience Questions, Comments, & Responses:

·        CalFed has monitoring as a central concern; MOU includes “identification of consistent monitoring protocols.”

·        Doesn’t DFG, SWRCB, RWQCB have protocols now? Water boards have databases only for water quality, not fish habitat parameters. Coastal Salmon Grant Program (DFG) has some fish habitat monitoring protocols.

·        Interagency Ecological Program (IEP) has an interactive relational database available to local watershed groups.

·        Access and use of data should be one of the needs; protocols are a separate issue.

 

STEP ELEVEN

11.  Develop an effective funding delivery system for grant recipients.

Address the ongoing need for a user-friendly grant process for recipients of state and federal restoration grants that also meets accountability standards of the grantors.

Leaders:   California Biodiversity Council; Kristin Cooper-Carter, CSU Chico;

Ann Riley, Waterways Restoration Institute; Dennis Heiman, Central Valley RWQCB

 

Update by: Cooper-Carter, Heiman, Renee Hoyos (Resources Agency)

 

·        Calif. Biodiversity Council (CBC) endorsed its Watershed Working Group’s “Best Funding Practices for Watershed Management” paper in September 2000, and supports next steps to refine and prioritize the recommendations.

·        Best Funding Practices recommendations were taken back to the departments after CBC endorsed.

·        A key issue is improving the speed that money gets out the door, since many programs do not offer upfront money to get started. Other state agencies do, so it may be a difference in legal interpretation. CalFed and Prop. 13 can give money upfront.

·        “Funding One-Stop-Shop” website to have trial run this fall (CSU Chico project)

·        Contract administration is different than program administration of funds

·        One option is to have a regional approach to funding distribution, since there’s dissatisfaction with the process to date by many. Basis would be that: 1) no one region is more important than another, and 2) local decisions will be good decisions. Too difficult to have an “all knowing” body of decision-makers in Sacramento.

·        One concept is Regional Trusts, setting up funding like CDF’s Forest Legacy program.

·        Legislature asks for bond accountability (e.g., Prop. 13), and the Governor’s Office of Innovation is asking how to measure success with these funds.

 

Audience Questions, Comments, & Responses:

·        “Every watershed has its needs” sounds like a song being repeated here.

·        Will the Funding Database include private sources too? Yes

·        Having a standard application form for every grant proposal would help.

·        Who is the process supposed to be user-friendly for? Agency or applicant? Pre-proposal concept got canned.

·        Need funding for evaluation to be able to measure success.

·        Matching dollars for funding efforts is a killer – both the timing and the amount.

·        Self evaluation can be grantor evaluating grantee, but also grantee evaluating grantor. DWR does have such an “exit exam” questionnaire that grant recipients are required to complete, to give the agency feedback on it grant process.

·        Timing of grant deadlines can be challenging; some groups keep resubmitting the same project to different grant programs while waiting for one to pick it up.

·        Oregon no longer does Requests for Proposals (RFPs), but instead asks that a Needs List be submitted.

 

STEP TWELVE

12.  Identify a package of new incentives that need to be developed, and existing disincentives that need to be removed, in order to improve watershed management.

Develop a list of conservation incentives in California – what is and isn’t working - as well as new ideas and solutions for better individual, business, and governmental involvement watershed management.

Leaders: Sungnome Madrone, Redwood Community Action Agency; Jacqueline Dingfelder, For Sake of the Salmon; Mark Lancaster, Trinity County; Dennis Heiman, Central Valley RWQCB; Pam Giacomini, Farm Bureau

 

Update by: Madrone & Giacomini (via e-mails)

 

·        Farm Bureau and California Wilderness Coalition have been working together for past 8 months on a document about “Incentives and Disincentives”.  It identifies areas within state and federal policy regarding conservation and restoration (not limited to watersheds) that needs to be changed. One step is how change could help landowners to better participated in conservation programs or restoration on their own, outside of a program but within regulatory guidelines without opening themselves up for litigation, fines, etc.

·        Some of this publication (available in 1-2 months) might be able to be used as this step.

·        Redwood Community Action Agency has updated its 1998 “Financial Incentives for Stewardship of Non-Industrial Private Forestland”.

 

Audience Questions, Comments, & Responses:

·        “State Task Force on Removing Barriers to Restoration on Private Property” was formed last year by Secretary Nichols. Members included non-agency organizations too. Its draft report is almost ready for distribution (1-2 months). Issues being addressed are: CEQA categorical exclusion for small projects, a permit hotline tied to RCDs, removing landowner liability problems, and regional technical review teams to help prepare and screen watershed restoration projects (to avoid lead agency problems and conflicting agency requirements).

·        The Forestlands Incentive Paper, prepared by another Resource Agency task force, is at the printer.

·        The California Forest Legacy Program Act passed in 2000. This CDF/USFS partnership protects private forestlands threatened by development by funding the purchase of forest conservation easements.

·        AB 1398 (Florez)       was introduced at request of California Cattlemen’s Association and the Planning and Conservation League. The bill would allow payments of $10-20 per acre to private landowners who agree to better maintain the wildlife and native plant habitat on their lands.

 

WHAT NEXT?

 

12 Steps Follow-Up

 

Ideas and concerns mentioned include:

·        Time demands of implementing the steps – we’re spread too thin now.

·        Combine Steps #2 & #5? Or keep the Governor step separate? Agreed to keep separate.

·        Steps #3 & 8 are too generic, #3 & #7 are essentially the same?

·        A lot of good things are happening now. What is still needed is more communication and coordination.

·        Where is this all leading to? So what?

·         Lots of things are happening: game pieces have moved forward this past year, state watershed programs are improving as a result, and networking in this room today is better and useful.

·        Need milestones! Use Maria’s list (see Intro) and show where we’re making progress.

·        Product delivery is important, leading to action implementation.

·        Is this forum just group therapy? Do we need this griping?

·        Fewer gripes now than in the past, showing a vast improvement over time.

·        Catalog / document efforts that are happening. But what does this look like?

·        Need progress reports every 6 months? Accountability helps move things forward.

·        Distill progress into an on-going document to take back to our constituencies to show them that “here is progress”!

·        An annual forum like this forces the state to document its progress.

·        A summary would be helpful to Secretary Nichols.

·        We’re not getting a sense of what is working and what is not. How to do this best?

·        Supporting groups – need to update them now and identify gaps still out there.

·        Avoid good / bad ratings

·        Need to bridge gaps with private landowners.

·        These forums aren’t what landowners would find relevant to their needs. More appropriate for watershed coordinators and agencies who work with landowners to deal with their issues, like funding and permitting. Step 12 is more directly their issue.

·        Policies and programs being discussed eventually translates to local landowner in terms of dollars (e.g., incentive funding).

·        We need to tell stories more, so we translate these issues into language everyone can relate to. Add stories and communication to #8 as a method of outreach.

·        This forum is addressing policy-level and programmatic changes that will hopefully improve local watershed efforts.

ÞÞACTION ITEMS !

 

v     Get leaders of the 12 Steps to prepare a written 1-2 page summary to contain:

1.      Progress to date

2.      Gaps identified

3.      Questions still needing to be answered

4.      Plans for the future, with a time line.

 

v     Put this forum summary and 2001 status of “12 Steps” (as revised above) on the WMC website along with other Forum materials.

 

v     Check in with co-leaders within 6 months (November 2001) and get written progress reports to share with forum participants.

 

v     Decide how and when to report progress to participants’ constituencies and to state leaders within the next year.

 

v     Hold another annual Forum in May or June 2002 to review progress together.

 

 

NATIONAL WATERSHED FORUM

 

The National Watershed Forum will be held in Arlington, Virginia on June 28-30, 2001. California will be sending 25 delegates to this event, many of whom were participants in the California forum series (also called the California Watershed Roundtable). The purpose of the national forum is have diverse watershed stakeholders across the country “investigate barriers and solutions to watershed protection and restoration”. It is intended to build upon the efforts of the 13 regional watershed roundtables that have already been held.

 

We need to be sure that California’s participation in the National Forum is reflective of the diversity of ideas and findings from our California Watershed Management Forums. First, we need to review recommendations made in the final report of our forums:

 

Proposed Recommendations to National Watershed Forum from our Forum Final Report:

 

To help improve the role of federal agencies in California’s watershed management, the following recommendations are made:

 

Ø      Restore the budget for the California office of NRCS, an agency which is being dismantled through federal budget cuts, ironically, during a time of great need.

 

Ø      Develop and disseminate updated technical standards of information and practices (e.g., NRCS field office technical guides).

 

Ø      Sustain federal programs of direct assistance, both technical and financial.

 

Ø      Continue long-term federal data gathering activities like USGS stream gages and the NRCS soil surveys. Do not require precious local dollars for such broad public benefit efforts.

 

Ø      Use local offices where federal agencies have a community presence (e.g., USFS, NRCS) to help get federal staff personally acquainted with local watershed needs.

 

Ø      Use local partners in data gathering on specific project areas and doing some long-term monitoring where they can likely do a better job than non-local agencies.

 

Ø      Remove federal legislative and administrative barriers to the service procurement process (e.g., cooperative agreements instead of low bid contracting).

 

Ø      Package watershed-related proposals in federal agency budgets to better appeal to administration and OMB priorities; appeal OMB decisions concerning critical budget proposals for watersheds and repackage if needed.

 

Ø      Include federal land managers as members of local watershed groups where their property is located, just like the private landowner.

 

Comments from Audience on 5/31/01:

 

·        US Forest Service watershed program needs more funding.

·        USFS State and Private Forestry program needs help too

·        Other federal programs needing support for sufficient funding are: Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and EQIP (both NRCS programs), and EPA’s Brownfield program.

·        Technical standards need to be enhanced for all federal agencies (NRCS, DOT, USFS…)

·        Federal legislators and agencies should help integrate urban and rural constituencies via watersheds.

·