Attending:
Will Deschenes, Mark Overduin (Zone 1/1A)
Julie Thomas, Linda Chipping (Coastal RCD)
Stephnie Wald (CCSE)
Erin O'Farrell, Susan Litteral (NRCS)
Bob Brown (CCSE)
Craig Taylor (Wallace & Assoc.)
 

1. Quorum of Advisory Committee members was not present, so Oct 24 minutes could not be approved..

2. Scope of Work Status (Julie Thomas): Letters of support for State Coastal Conservancy match are needed from as many people as possible by Nov. 5th. The letters can be sent to Julie who will forward them to Tim Duff. She will send the CC address to everyone. Linda suggested making the support letter personal. The RCD will forward ideas on concepts to address. Julie will send them out requests for letters of support to other officials as well. Linda adds that this is really important to do due to funding constraints. This will match the county funding. The study should be completed by Fall of 2005.

3. Individual projects (Erin O’Farrell): Erin arranged the visit with Mike Hill who will come and describe how individual projects might move ahead. Gary indicated that if there were a way to directly pay for vegetation management, there might be more support from landowners rather than paying into county assessment. CCC fees are around $1000 per day for crew of 15.

4. Vegetation Management (Mike Hill, Fisheries Biologist with DFG) to review types of flood channel vegetation removal that may or may not be done without obtaining a permit from the DFG.
• Permit with the CCCs doing the work will give consistency in performance.
• County let their permits expire.
• Section 1602 of DFG Code specifies that before bed, bank or channel is modified streambed alteration agreement is needed.
• Removal of large horizontal branches, trimmed up to height of 5-6 feet is preferred. It’s his job to get projects done in a matter consistent with the regulations. Hand tools are preferred but chain saws are okay with a permit so that petroleum is kept from stream.
• Reviewed 8 things that are considered to get a permit. He can write a permit for any part of the county but depending on activity desired, there may be a need to get additional permits. Great time to start applying now to get permit for next year. Takes about three months to process a permit.
•  Sediment removal potential is okay to scoop and lift, but not to bulldoze or move sediment in channel. Army Corps of Engineers permit is also needed to remove sediment.
•  June 15-Oct. 31st is construction timeline for steelhead streams, that’s when work is okay to do under a permit.
• Folks could cut lateral branches to height of about 5 feet now if they wanted without a permit. If others want to do it please call Mike first. There are 4 property owners from 22nd street to the beach (about 3/4s of a mile). This would be considered substantial. Trimming vegetation during non-construction time is possible. Best to get an application going (counties expired a couple of months ago) under the NRCS possibly.
• What about Los Berros Creek? No water in it now (Marjorie). Still need permits.
• Mike could probably provide a permit before Feb. 15th (nesting season). Fee is dependent on cost of project-- $125 for project up to $25K.
• What is required with removed vegetation? Exotics need to be bagged and taken to a landfill. Other material can be chipped and mulched. Needs to come out of channel. Refuse can just be removed without permit.
• Perhaps the RCD can be the recipient of the permit.
• Water quantity would be reviewed and conditions posed; aquatic resources impacts would be reviewed; riparian vegetation impacts would be reviewed; terrestrial resources impacts would be reviewed; other resource impact will be reviewed. Land Conservancy might be able to hold the permit, too.
• After an application is submitted, Mike conducts a site visit, walks the area, writes up conditions, and  if the conditions are okay with applicant, then signatures are gathered and the applicant can do the work. The permit is for rhree to five years, then renewable for one year. Erin will follow up with Mike to get a site visit. After application is received by DFG, Mike has 30 days to see if complete. From that 30 days, he has 60 days to issue a permit. If after 90, you can do the project. Typically takes a month to actually get done. Assuming everything was ready, he could try to have something to us by the end of Nov. to trim vegetation. Could be for whole flood control channel.
• Dominic indicated they have contract to do pre-fire chipping which can be funded through CDF. Contact Bruce to schedule a crew for actual work.
• mhill@dfg.ca.gov Mike Hill email 489-7355 office phone  Mon-Fri  8am-5pm

5. Katcho met with David Edge regarding emergency funding. If there was an emergency, the county would do the work and let the state know and ask for reimbursement. Gary suggested that the state could turn around and ask the zone to pay. Katcho sent a letter to Assemblyman Abel Maldonado to move the state to commit one way or the other.  Katcho subsequently met with Secretary Crisman and Assemblyman Abel Maldonado to try to resolve the jurisdiction question. Tomorrow on BOS agenda will be an update on the creek channel situation. There is an opportunity for public comment. Something in writing is expected from DWR in terms of resolution.

6. Arroyo Grande Creek clean up (Steph Wald). Trash removed successfully from many areas of the creek. Public works road crews assisted, Forest Service helped, lots of high schoolers also assisted.

7. Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed Management Plan (Steph Wald): Provided update on final stretch of development of plan; hydrology and preliminary assessment of erosion complete; stream inventory complete;

8. Landowner access agreements (Steph Wald): Asked landowners to consider providing access agreements to CCSE in order to conduct a steelhead abundance and distribution survey. The access agreements are part of the application process for funding the study. Would provide access to CCSE staff and consultant to survey  fish visually, by electrofishing or snorkel survey.

9. Remainder of items to be placed on next agenda.

Adjournment
 
 

RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

Attending:
Julie Thomas, Linda Chipping (Coastal RCD)
Stephnie Wald, Hari Nam Elliott (CCSE)
Erin O'Farrell, Susan Litteral (NRCS)
Vern Dahl, OCSD
Will Deschenes, Stan Ikeda, Gary Kobara, Vickie Cardoza, Glenda L. Guiton, Kasuo Ikeda
Marjorie Gilliam, Jan Hayes - Los Berros residents
Dominic Santangelo, CCC
Martin Pehl - Oceano airport
Hector Chavez
Vicki Janssen
Mike Hill, CDFG

1. Minutes of 9/27/04 approved as written.

2. Scope of Work Status (Julie Thomas): Letters of support for State Coastal Conservancy match are needed from as many people as possible by Nov. 5th. The letters can be sent to Julie who will forward them to Tim Duff. She will send the CC address to everyone. Linda suggested making the support letter personal. The RCD will forward ideas on concepts to address. Julie will send them out requests for letters of support to other officials as well. Linda adds that this is really important to do due to funding constraints. This will match the county funding. The study should be completed by Fall of 2005.

3. Individual projects (Erin O’Farrell): Erin arranged the visit with Mike Hill who will come and describe how individual projects might move ahead. Gary indicated that if there were a way to directly pay for vegetation management, there might be more support from landowners rather than paying into county assessment. CCC fees are around $1000 per day for crew of 15.

4. Vegetation Management (Mike Hill, Fisheries Biologist with DFG) to review types of flood channel vegetation removal that may or may not be done without obtaining a permit from the DFG.
• Permit with the CCCs doing the work will give consistency in performance.
• County let their permits expire.
• Section 1602 of DFG Code specifies that before bed, bank or channel is modified streambed alteration agreement is needed.
• Removal of large horizontal branches, trimmed up to height of 5-6 feet is preferred. It’s his job to get projects done in a matter consistent with the regulations. Hand tools are preferred but chain saws are okay with a permit so that petroleum is kept from stream.
• Reviewed 8 things that are considered to get a permit. He can write a permit for any part of the county but depending on activity desired, there may be a need to get additional permits. Great time to start applying now to get permit for next year. Takes about three months to process a permit.
•  Sediment removal potential is okay to scoop and lift, but not to bulldoze or move sediment in channel. Army Corps of Engineers permit is also needed to remove sediment.
•  June 15-Oct. 31st is construction timeline for steelhead streams, that’s when work is okay to do under a permit.
• Folks could cut lateral branches to height of about 5 feet now if they wanted without a permit. If others want to do it please call Mike first. There are 4 property owners from 22nd street to the beach (about 3/4s of a mile). This would be considered substantial. Trimming vegetation during non-construction time is possible. Best to get an application going (counties expired a couple of months ago) under the NRCS possibly.
• What about Los Berros Creek? No water in it now (Marjorie). Still need permits.
• Mike could probably provide a permit before Feb. 15th (nesting season). Fee is dependent on cost of project-- $125 for project up to $25K.
• What is required with removed vegetation? Exotics need to be bagged and taken to a landfill. Other material can be chipped and mulched. Needs to come out of channel. Refuse can just be removed without permit.
• Perhaps the RCD can be the recipient of the permit.
• Water quantity would be reviewed and conditions posed; aquatic resources impacts would be reviewed; riparian vegetation impacts would be reviewed; terrestrial resources impacts would be reviewed; other resource impact will be reviewed. Land Conservancy might be able to hold the permit, too.
• After an application is submitted, Mike conducts a site visit, walks the area, writes up conditions, and  if the conditions are okay with applicant, then signatures are gathered and the applicant can do the work. The permit is for rhree to five years, then renewable for one year. Erin will follow up with Mike to get a site visit. After application is received by DFG, Mike has 30 days to see if complete. From that 30 days, he has 60 days to issue a permit. If after 90, you can do the project. Typically takes a month to actually get done. Assuming everything was ready, he could try to have something to us by the end of Nov. to trim vegetation. Could be for whole flood control channel.
• Dominic indicated they have contract to do pre-fire chipping which can be funded through CDF. Contact Bruce to schedule a crew for actual work.
• mhill@dfg.ca.gov Mike Hill email 489-7355 office phone  Mon-Fri  8am-5pm

5. Katcho met with David Edge regarding emergency funding. If there was an emergency, the county would do the work and let the state know and ask for reimbursement. Gary suggested that the state could turn around and ask the zone to pay. Katcho sent a letter to Assemblyman Abel Maldonado to move the state to commit one way or the other.  Katcho subsequently met with Secretary Crisman and Assemblyman Abel Maldonado to try to resolve the jurisdiction question. Tomorrow on BOS agenda will be an update on the creek channel situation. There is an opportunity for public comment. Something in writing is expected from DWR in terms of resolution.

6. Arroyo Grande Creek clean up (Steph Wald). Trash removed successfully from many areas of the creek. Public works road crews assisted, Forest Service helped, lots of high schoolers also assisted.

7. Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed Management Plan (Steph Wald): Provided update on final stretch of development of plan; hydrology and preliminary assessment of erosion complete; stream inventory complete;

8. Landowner access agreements (Steph Wald): Asked landowners to consider providing access agreements to CCSE in order to conduct a steelhead abundance and distribution survey. The access agreements are part of the application process for funding the study. Would provide access to CCSE staff and consultant to survey  fish visually, by electrofishing or snorkel survey.

9. Remainder of items to be placed on next agenda. Next meeting to be Nov. 22nd.

Adjournment
 
 

RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

Attending:  Erin O’Farrell and Susan Litteral (NRCS),
Glenda Guiton, Gary Kobara (presiding), and Stan Ikeda, Will D. (Zone 1/1A members)
George Gibson, Glen Priddy, Mark Hutchinson, (County of SLO Public Works)
Julie Thomas, Linda Chipping (Coastal San Luis RCD)
Vicki Janssen (County of SLO)
Bob Brown and Steph Wald (Central Coast Salmon Enhancement)
Marjorie Gilliam, resident

Zone 1/1A Members Absent: Mark Overduin, John Taylor, Vicki Cardoza

I. Welcome, Introductions and Public Comment: Gary Kobara presided. Self-introductions were made. No public comment.

II. Review of Minutes: 8/23/04 Accepted as presented (Glenda/Stan). Julie and Steph will record and alternate transcribing and distributing minutes.

III. Scope of Work Status Julie Completed scope of work and forwarded to county for contract signatures. Copy available from Julie. Linda sent SOW to DWR and received comments from Keith Swanson of DWR that it is well thought out and should provide valuable information to formulate future plans to better address the AG flood control issues. and that he had heard good things about Swanson Hydrology and Geomorphology (contractor). Steph passed around previous document that Swanson produced on Santa Maria River. Marjorie asked about Los Berros Creek element of SOW and was assured that it is part of the study. Gary asked how far up does Los Berros go? Julie indicated about ¼ mile up. Zone boundary is about where Century Road crosses the creek. Will asked if water is in Los Berros Creek. Gary indicated there is water till about the end of August then comes up again around October. This year, water ran out in May.

IV. Development of emergency protocol for approaching rainy season Julie distributed list of questions and answers that Glen had reviewed. Glen’s written responses are also being made available to anyone wishing a copy and will be attached to minutes for the record.
1. How does Public Works define emergency? Working during a storm is normal storm operations. Emergency is when you can predict things are getting bad and they can no longer be kept up with. Operations manual says they are to call DWR and ask for help from them. There isn’t a lot of time between normal storm operations and when it hits an emergency state. During wet years when storms have gone through and ground is already saturated, and prediction of another storm coming, then you might be at a point of calling DWR or Army Corps for help. Even then there isn’t a lot that can be done because when levees are saturated you can’t put anything heavy on them. Removing debris and going in after and trying to repair damages is about the limit of what’s practical to do. Steph asked that under emergency status would it be DWR/ACOE who would respond, or the county? Glen said that they would only be asked to come in when normal storm operations would no longer be sufficient.
2. What triggers emergency protocol? Predictions of heavy storm events triggers storm response and standard operations.
3. What protocols are currently in place to respond to emergencies in the Flood Zone 1/1A? Debris dams at Century, Valley and 22nd Street are covered by the county by bridge maintenance crew mobilized during storm events. Emergency Operations Center is activated during storm events for all roads. Highway 1 bridge belongs to CalTrans, and county will notify them if they see a situation arising for response. Railroad bridge belongs to railroad, county has contact numbers should the need arise for a response. When the levee broke there was a railroad crane here at the time. All three agencies with bridges in the area have crews ready to respond to debris jams on bridges.
• Julie asked how quickly does RR respond? Glen indicated that they have not had to call them, but they were there when the flood channel was filling (in March, 2001) watching the situation as it evolved. The initial call can come to county who would then call RR. Can also call Sheriff’s office which would then dispatch to storm center.
• Marjorie asked if sandbags would be available. Glen indicated that Public Works doesn’t store sandbags any longer, but an individual could purchase from a hardware or feed supply store. The city of Arroyo Grande may be able to provide resources, at certain times in the past the city has been able to help out. The county could provide sand at certain locations for bags with a forewarning.
• Will asked if there has been any preventative maintenance done? Glen replied that there hasn’t been any vegetation clearing this year, no budget. This is a stand-alone district and it is unclear what role the state will be playing.
• Where does money come from in an emergency? The district had $140,000 in reserves last year and this year it had about $70,000 in reserve and the county is predicting that there will be no reserves for next year as money is being spent faster than it is coming in as public works has large bills from risk management that are paying off the claims from the levee break. If the state takes over they’ll come through with an assessment to increase the revenue, and if the state doesn’t take over the county will have an election to ask the people in the district if they will increase their service charges so that the county will have money to work with. The state wouldn’t have to have an election to increase service charges, but the county would need to have elections, due to state laws. If the county continues to operate (the flood channel/levee) there will be a 218 election to try to get the revenue to finance this district. The public works director is indicating this is the pathway though which the board of supervisors would make the determination to hold an election.
• Will asked “what if you run out of money in the middle of a rainy season?” Glen indicated he couldn’t answer that question as it hasn’t happened. There is $5,000 in the operations budget and $70,000 in reserves. The $70K can be used for emergency but it is intended to finance next year’s budget because the zone 1/1A is in a deficit spending mode. Half of reserves were used last year and expect to use the rest next year.
• Gary asked about how many work crews there are for the county. There are 75-80 road maintenance workers in the county. There is one bridge crew that needs to be use in prioritized response if needed.
• Glenda asked about election and whether it would be to increase the number of those being assessed or to increase the assessment for those already assessed? Glen indicated that that hasn’t yet been determined. George reiterated that the county road crews are wearing a flood control hat when they respond to zone problems. He also described the process of opening the county storm center, manually tracking incidents being reported, resources are then sent to areas needing assistance based on a priority system. Also tracking storms to anticipate problems and historical info on problem run off areas. When the levee broke last time an emergency was declared and the county administrative officer had the authority to expend funds, the reserves. The NRCS and county had an agreement to access funding sources for repair after the fact.
• Gary indicated the need to get a contact at the RR. Glen indicated he would seek their operations number. Steph indicated that Oct. 9th is annual creek clean up where volunteers would be clearing trash from creek bed which would increase capacity of the creek in a minor way.
• Julie asked what contingencies there might be if a levee breach was imminent and crews could only access bridges. Glen indicated that heavy equipment can not go on levees with any effectiveness.
•  Marjorie asked about Los Berros flooding the roads. Glen indicated that the roads would be closed and cleaned up after waters recede. Julie suggested we grease the skids now in the event that the zone is in need of additional funding pending an emergency. Glen offered to talk to Noel about it, though Katcho would need to take it forward.
4. Can zone members be the “eyes” for the county? Yes. Especially bridge and flood flap gates at lagoon.
5. Is there any work the landowners can do to address a flood threat? Public works can not direct such activities.
6. Does the county coordinate with Lopez Dam to control releases during heavy rainfall? Yes. Dean Benedix is now Division Head of Lopez Dam. It is there to collect water, makes releases for environmental reasons and to recharge groundwater and to store it during storm events. Releases are cut back to keep storage to full, until it spills over spillway.

V. Projects update  Erin Surveys of levees are complete. She showed printout of cross sections of creek flow areas within the channel. Compared the original channel configuration versus what it is now. The sediment we were considering removing may not be worth the effort given the relative uniformity of the levees which are pretty consistent with original elevations. Susan indicated that it would be useful to remove the overburden but not to place it on the levee. The Los Berros tributary functions as a drainage swale and is designed to hold waters before coming in Los Berros. Discussion on vegetation clearing (debris, not actually cutting vegetation) by people in sub-divisions. Susan talked about dynamic nature of creek sediment movement over time. Julie asked what flood hazard is to Marjorie’s area. Susan has yet to determine this aspect. They are not recommending individual projects as we had originally conceived of them. Some selective pruning on some areas of Los Berros would be helpful where permits wouldn’t be required according to Susan. She could instruct on proper way to do it. Fish and Game permits are advisable for alteration of bed, bank or channel according to Mark H. Steph indicated that for Nipomo Creek, there is a streambed alteration agreement to do hand crew vegetation removal. It may be something to try here in the interim so that some vegetation management is accomplished. Will asked about the standing coastal commission permit the county currently holds in the coastal zone of the flood channel. Steph indicated it is for a small amount of sediment removal only. Will asked about when last time channel was cleared to the ocean. Sometime in the 1980s. Heavy rains in mid to late 90s led to growth we see now. Susan described the proper method of pruning willows to encourage tree growth rather than hedge growth to provide shade which will further discourage subsequent willow growth. Julie offered to seek a small grant to cover vegetation management for next spring summer.

VI. Update on building political support  Coastal Commission permit was raised by Linda who asked that it be extended (expires 7/31/05) since the requirement of alternatives study is soon to be underway. Linda distributed a letter prepared for Congresswoman Capps regarding PL-566 funds to come from RCD and Zone 1/1A. The letter requests Ms. Capps to proceed with actions to amend legislation to include levee systems for rehabilitation funds. Currently the funds can be used to build levee systems and repair dams, but not to rehabilitate levee systems. This would be 65/35 match funding where 65% would be federal dollars and 35% would need to come from sponsors which would need to be generated. This would help down the road. Perhaps county would submit a letter to Ms. Capps? Glen indicated that the protocol would be for the zone to request that the county administrative office and BOS write a letter on behalf of the zone members. Vicki suggested taking off Zone signature block and having it come from the RCD and Katcho sending a letter indicating county support for the request. There is a web site at the bottom of our copies which provides more information on the program which we are requesting be modified to cover levee rehab. Individual letters could be sent. Steph offered to write a generic letter for individual use. Linda offered to send her version by email. Linda will also be sending a letter to Congressman Thomas. District could still apply for new monies through this legislation, there are two different pots of funds. Linda will prepare a request letter for the flood zone 1/1A to Katcho asking him to support the amended legislation.

VII. Election of New Advisory Committee Chair Stan nominated Gary. Will moved to change chair from Mark to Gary with the rest of officers to remain the same. Seconded by Stan.  Steph indicated possible need to expand membership strategically for seeking political support. She suggested keeping this on the agenda. Number of members could be increased with request to BOS.

Next Advisory Group meeting: Monday, 3:00pm, October 25, 2004.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
 
 

RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

Mark Overduin chaired the meeting, and attendees introduced themselves.

There was no public comment.
 

II.    Review minutes.
No comments or corrections to minutes from July 26, 2004, and they were approved as written.
 

III. Scope of work for alternatives studies
Julie reported that the near-final draft of Swanson Hydrology and Geomorphology’s (SHG) scope of work was expected that afternoon or the next day.  She would email it to committee members and asked that comments be forwarded to her by the end of the week, Friday, August 27, to be forwarded to SHG for the final SOW.  She explained that the scopes of work for SLO County and the Coastal Conservancy had been combined into one document, after Susan Litteral had discussed the pros and cons of separate vs. combined documents with the RCD County Counsel.   Regarding the aerials photos which would be used to create the topographic maps, Julie reported that Susan Litteral had looked at recent aerials taken by the Sanitation District, and at others taken by the County Airport, and that they were not of sufficient resolution to meet the needs of the Alternatives Study, since the computer modeling will require very high resolution to provide accurate results.

 Consultant selection process
Following up on questions from the previous meeting about the process used to select the consultant to perform the Alternatives Study, Linda described the consultant selection process followed by the RCD.  She also explained the rules of the California Association of RCDs which determine when projects need to go out to bid, and why this was not one of those situations.  A combination of factors contributed to the selection of SHG: a verbal commitment from the Coastal Conservancy for funding based on the assumption that SHG would be the consultant, the placement of SHG in the County’s interview and selection process prior to relinquishment, SHG’s recent work experience on AG Creek for CCSE, and their work on the Santa Maria River and San Lorenzo River.  Linda mentioned that SHG also met the indemnification requirements.  She said that the CSLRCD Board of Directors would be formally affirming this process for the record.

Mark asked if it was going to take about two more years/rainy seasons before any projects could begin on the ground.  Linda said that Erin is working on the groundwork for doing small, short-term projects in the near future, but that it will be probably be 4 to 5 years before we get to actually install the big on-the-ground projects.
 

IV. Building political support
The group discussed possible strategies for bringing the SOW to local, regional, state and federally-elected bodies to educate and lay the groundwork for funding the necessary projects once the study is completed.  Among the ideas:
• Beginning now, we could engage pertinent groups and elected individuals in an educational process, tell them “here’s what we’re doing”.  Down the line, we can move onto telling them “here’s what we want”, once projects have been selected and prioritized.
• Send out invitations to meetings, and followup with summaries of what occurred at the meetings, to keep key parties up-to-date.
• The website can become an important tool for disseminating information.
• Develop email list of website updates to send out when there’s something new to see
• Keep the status of the project before cities, etc., in the form of a newsletter, brochure.
• Need to have different materials, different summaries, for different audiences.
• The website should have a “project status” section that people can print out – would save on mailing costs.
• On the website, have a pictorial history, “then and now.”
• Vicki J. suggested just approaching elected officials when there are major milestones, something concrete, not just monthly newsletters.

 The SOW review by DWR
Linda reported that contacts at the DWR have expressed a willingness to review the SOW; they have not yet done any review.

 Funding
Linda reported that an amendment to PL 566 passed in 2000 will provide funding for dam rehabilitation, but channel rehabilitation was not included.  Linda has spoken with Greg Haas, Lois Capps’ legislative analyst, exploring the possibility that PL 566 could be further amended to include a project like the AG Creek.
 

V. Project update – individual farmers
Erin showed the group the GIS printout of the levee elevations created  surveys recently completed by NRCS/RCD staff.  She said the data needs to be looked at more closely to determine the elevation differences and where there are potential individual project sites which can provide small improvements in flood protection.  She said that they would be doing further GPSing the following week.  John Wallace asked a question about the GPS’s vertical accuracy, and Susan  filled in the details about the engineering standard of the GPS.

 Lopez Dam releases.  Vicki C. asked about the role of releases from Lopez Lake play during storm events and times of high flood risk. There was some discussion about releases of water from Lopez.  Steph mentioned that Chapter 4 of the HCP discussed water releases for salmon.  Vicki J.  suggested that the Advisory Comm. write a letter  commenting on the draft HCP, recommending that they shut down Lopez down releases during high flows.
 Another option discussed was raising the levee along its entire length.

 Emergency procedures.  Mark brought up the question of how to go about setting up emergency procedures in the event of sudden heavy rains.  Susan discussed some of the logistics of the County’s emergency responses, and where most of the resources are allocated, and aspects of what would be required to get emergency procedures set up for the Zone 1/1A flood zone, including setting up open purchase orders.  Among the people needed at the table for the discussion would be George Gibson, Cliff Howell (road crews), and Mark Hutchinson (permits).  Vicki J asked Eric Laurie to figure out who needs to be here at the next meeting to set up an emergency plan.
 An unanswered question: who do we need to talk to at the railroad to address the danger posed by the constriction point at the bridge?

VI. Consideration of replacement/election of new chair.
Mark asked people to think of nominations, and agendized selection of a new chair for the next meeting.

Next Advisory Group meeting:   Monday, 3:00pm, September 27, 2004.

RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

Members present:
Will Deshenes, Glenda Guiton, Gary Kobara, John Taylor, Victoria Cardoza
Members absent:
Mark Overduin
Other attendees:
Katcho Achadjian, SLO County Bd of Supervisors
Dean Benedix, SLO County Flood Control District
Robert A. Brown, CCSE Stephnie Wald, CCSE Connie Henley, CCSE
Linda Chipping, President, RCD Bd of Directors
Vern Dahl, Oceano Community Services District
Marjorie Gilliam, resident of Arroyo Grande
Emery Haggin, Troy Smith and Swede Johnson residents of Cienaga Sea Breeze Mobile Home Park
Susan Litteral, NRCS
Erin O'Farrell, NRCS/RCD
Martin Pehl, Oceano Airport
Tom Runels, Zone 3 Flood Control District
Dee Santos, Mayor, Grover Beach
Julie Thomas, RCD South County Watershed Coordinator
John Wallace, South SLO Sanitation District

I . Welcome and introductions.
In Mark Overduin's absence, Gary Kobara chaired the meeting.

II. Review minutes.
No comments or corrections to minutes from June 21, 2004. Glenda moved to approve as written, Will seconded.

IIa. Public comment (impromptu)
Katcho suggested that before proceeding with items on the agenda, we hear the concerns of the three residents of Cienaga Sea Breeze MHP attending the meeting, Emery Haggin, Swede Johnson, and Troy Smith. They expressed interest in protecting the community good and their property, and described the location of the mobile home park adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek. They are concerned about people riding up and down on the AG Creek channel bank because of noise, dirt, and safety. Their questions: who's responsible for the channel at that location? Per Vicki Cardoza, no agency is responsible, the property owners are responsible. Katcho said that if it's your property, you could possibly put a gate up; he said that they could send him an email, and he would check into the legalities of doing that.
Other concerns expressed by the Cienaga Sea Breeze MHP residents were that the stumps in the channel were very big, vegetation was dense. If their mobile home park was flooded, there might be legal action. Where's the water going to go when winter comes? They're interested in helping us find a solution. Katcho mentioned that a task force was being discussed.

III. Scope of work for alternatives studies
Status: Julie distributed copies of Swanson Hydrology and Geomorphology's (Swanson) Task Descriptions (aka Scope of Work) for both the SLO County and Coastal Conservancy portions of the Alternatives Study, as well as their timeline, and briefly reviewed those documents.

Consultant selection: Dean asked questions about the Scope of Work and choice of consultant, which were addressed by Linda. John Wallace suggested that the process of selection and evaluation of the consultant should be broadened so folks doing funding can participate. Gary mentioned that pre-relinquishment, a number of firms were interviewed, and he assumed that information was taken into consideration when Swanson was selected to do the Alternative's Study. Katcho said that it is a good point that when public funds are involved, we need to be able to demonstrate that we're spending them responsibly; we need to take bids, assess qualifications. He said we should go forward as we are, but be aware that there may be criticism in this regard.
Linda discussed the County's selection process for consultants prior to relinquishment, and Swanson's placement near the top of the list in that process. She emphasized that time is of the essence, and the importance of using Swanson for continuity. She is going to further research procurement mandates for California Resource Conservation Districts.

Aerials: John Wallace said that the Sanitation District may have aerials which the consultant could use. Katcho said the County also has aerials. Susan is researching the County's aerial photos. Steph said that the products of CCSE's watershed study, including aerials, will be brought forward for use in the alternatives study.

Funding allocation: John Wallace asked about funding allocation. Katcho said that the money is allocated to this group (Zone 1/1A).
Susan said that the Coastal Conservancy money is allocated to the RCD; the contract with the County is being developed by Julie. The RCD will be the clearing house to collect funds and disperse payments.
John Wallace suggested that the RCD should have procurement practices.

Comments: Linda asked that comments on Swanson's proposed SOW be sent to Julie directly, so they could be compiled and sent to Swanson.

IV. County
Alternatives Study Next Steps Katcho thanked all the committee members for their efforts, and emphasized that it will continue to take coordinated efforts in the future, speaking with one voice, to get the necessary results, as follows: Once the SOW is in place, addressing all the concerns, Katcho will go the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, school boards, airport, OCSD, etc., and make presentations. Once everyone is on board, Katcho will organize a meeting with all State and Federal representatives and locally elected officials, to emphasize the following: we have a SOW, we will be flooded, and funding and permitting are issues. Katcho said we will then need to put in place a lobbying effort to get the necessary funding and permitting. With the government, any time there's a regional need and a regional effort, you get more response than if the request is from an individual or a group.
Some discussion followed about the possible roles of the Coastal Commission (permitting) and DWR.
Katcho emphasized that the Scope of Work should address funding sources and permitting. He said that under emergencies, funds are readily available, but without an emergency, they're not.

Annual Inspection Susan reported that she and Dean inspected the levee, and that Dean wrote up the report, but the report was not released. Due to relinquishment, there was a disagreement between attorneys about who should write the report, who should see the report, and who should receive the report. Also, Susan said that the County attorneys have never informed the NRCS of relinquishment, so as far as the NRCS knows, the County is still responsible.

Status of Budget/Maintenance work plan for Zone 1/1A Connie asked if there is still a County work plan in effect for Zone 1/1A. Dean replied that there is a budget, but no money to maintain the channel. There is a total budget of $50,000, 95% of which is consumed by repayments to flood lawsuits. Katcho explained that the County's liability for the 2001 floods was limited to $250,000, and the rest was paid by insurance. The comment was made that nobody gets to use the Zone 1/1A fees for channel maintenance until the county is repaid for the $250,000.
Katcho noted that the railroad people need to be included in discussions.

Status of Relinquishment Action and Grand Jury Report There was discussion of the Grand Jury Report about the County's role in Flood Zone 1/1A and status of relinquishment.

V. Framework for funding development for selected alternative
Steph asked whether researching funding sources for preferred alternatives is one of the SOW tasks on the Alternatives Study. Julie said she's check - it should be included.
Steph reported that she has a folder of potential funding sources, and can put together a matrix of matching funds, timing, partnerships. Would like the group to keep that on its radar.
Dean noted that it is absolutely vital to do that, as funding analysis alone will probably cost at least $25,000. We want strong study recommendations to help with getting funding.
John Wallace suggested that we consider having the funding analysis done separately from the rest of the SOW, as that is a different skill.

VI. Follow-up on:
Sanitation district Discussed presentation by Neil Havlik, Katcho, and Susan to Sanitation District board on July 7. John Wallace updated the group on the Sanitation District's flood protection preparations.
Joint meeting through Ag Roundtable venue Steph attended the Ag Roundtable meeting at Ella Honeycutt's request. Steph said the attendees didn't see themselves as an appropriate venue for flood control activities.

VII. Projects update
Individual farmers Erin reported that they hope to start surveying the levees next week, and probably won't complete until the end of August. Dean stated that the County has a cross-section of the entire Arroyo Grande Creek up to Los Berros, every 50 feet, done 3 years ago, before the breech.
Website Julie asked for volunteers for an ad hoc committee to select materials for the Zone 1/1A website. Steph and Bob Brown volunteered.

Next Advisory Group meeting: Monday, August 23, 2004.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
 
 

RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE