GARRAPATA CREEK WATERSHED COUNCIL (GCWC)

GENERAL MEETING Minutes – 12/16/00

Held at the home of Molly Williams and Tom Davies at the Garrapata Trout Farm.

Approx. 35  people attended

 

Guests:   John Williams – Hydrologist and stream expert

                Jonathan Berkey – Resource Conservation District of Monterey County

                Daniel Mountjoy – USDA-National Resources Conservation Service

                Ron Lunquist- Monterey County Department of Public Works

 

Agenda – Welcome – 2 pm

                Updates – Ken Ekelund

                Our Steelhead – John Williams

                CRMP – Jonathan Berkey

                Break

                Break-out Session- Issues and Concerns

 

Updates- Ken talked spent a few minutes brining the group up to date on the following.

 

1. Creek walks are a way of identifying problems; the group has made several walks from the mouth of Garrapata Creek as far as the bridge on Garrapatos Road, up some of Wildcat Canyon, and up Joshua Creek to the first waterfall. Found some trash along the way, but not new trash  - (metal, cars, batteries, etc. –– a Monterey Herald vending machine found at .35 cents a copy.) Creek walks have to done at the proper time of year – not to disturb fish. Fish and Game Biologist are saying don’t take fallen trees & wood out of the creek! They are needed for a healthy creek.

 

2. Richard Taylor reported on a water test he conducted last summer (8/1) for contaminants - metals, pest and herbicides. He found they were not present in the creek – it is relatively pristine. We do have e-coli (source animals or septic), but NO lead or other heavy metals!

Bill Nelson and Ken now have water-testing equipment and will do it regularly. On the fish side, it’s pretty good; there is plenty of oxygen and the temperature is fine (14Ί C). The main problem is sediment. There is a network of water monitoring for Monterey Bay and we may provide the information we collect to the Citizen’s Monitoring network. It was also noted that the Garrapata Water Co. also does regular testing of their water.

 

3. Garrapatos Road. Ron Lundquist, of Public Works Department. Present and was able to talk to a lot of residents.

Our goal is improving Garrapatos Road and not hurting the fish.

On the recommendation of residents – responses say 3 to 1 for paving upper Garrapatos Rd.  Need to give recommendation to Public Works.

 

4. Grant Status:  Our Grant was approved for a roads assessment. We’ll look at the watershed as a whole with a detailed report and recommendations for fixing any problems relating to roads. Monterey Co. Public Works Department has submitted 2 grants for consideration (full proposal was Ό million $)– both turned down. After the Road Assessment is finished, it will be much easier for them to get their grant funded. Ron Luguist requested that they have some of their department present when the county portion is looked at. The GCWC will be working with them to get the funding to fix the road. 

 

Our Watershed Assessment:

 Need to work on collecting data. We have to take a look at the current conditions before we can fix anything.

 For owners who want to participate, they need the signed waivers – for entry to people’s properties. If any owners needs to include special wording in their waiver, please let Ken no If there is no signed waiver, no one will come on your property, but realize that the whole watershed is being looked at.  Once we have the assessment – the grant dollars can fix problems on private lands. Need to hire professionals – re-design and grade the road.

10% matching funds (from landowners) is NOT required for the assessment. Once the assessment is complete, we will plan to do some corrective work; there will probably be a 10% matching fund requirement on that….we are going to start fund-raising next year.

 

5. Non-Profit Status We are working on getting Non-profit corporation status. This will help us be eligible for some types of grants (private as well as public); when we get this status (mid 2001) we will then ask for money. 

 

6. Work Days We will be doing work days next year….we will work outside of the stream bed in the spring and go after non-native plants like Cape Ivy; we can only work or walk in the creek during summer or fall when there are no danger to fish eggs or larvae.

 

Our Steelhead (John Williams):  “ Bill Weaver and Dan Hagans (of Pacific Watershed Associates, who will do road assessment) are a good resource and have developed a way to do it.”

Steelhead: No one knows much about them. From 1900 to the 1980’s the steelhead distribution map left out many streams so they don’t show up in scientific literature.

The basic reference for steelhead is a Fish & Game report from the 1940’s on Waddell Creek (in Santa Cruz Co.) on the silver salmon and steelhead trout. Jerry Smith at SJSU also did study north of Monterey Bay, which is reported in the “gray literature (un-published scientific paper).”

Rob Titus – information describing coastal creeks – but not a lot of studies in our area.

Steelhead and Rainbow trout are the same fish. Some Rainbow trout stay in fresh water and never go to the ocean.  The ones that do go to seas are called steelhead (loose rainbow stripe and body is more gray. Fish come in during the winter (in the big flows after several big rains) – could be in the creek until about April. (In the past, poachers got very good at knowing where and when the run comes in but a lot of this was lost.)  Fish swim upstream and dig nests in the gravel called redds.  They flip the gravel in the water and lay their eggs in depressions in the gravel nests.  The males fertilize the eggs and move upstream and the pair do it again.  To find the “redds”, you are looking for a patch of stirred-up gravel. Silt destroys the oxygen to the eggs and prevents carrying away of wastes too.  The fish need flow through gravel.  Also need ed for the invertebrates which grow in the gravel; with sand they don’t do well.

 

How long to hatch depends on temperature – 25 to 35 days. Born with external egg sacks – which are absorbed in 2 – 3 weeks.  They then come into feeding and also go down into, and burrow into the gravel for food – so heavy sediment is no good.   Juveniles have “parr” marks (vertical stripes) and are called ‘parrs’. The next stage is from a parr to a smolt – in 2-3 years they change color and shape and become smolts – developing special cells in their gills to be able to absorb salt water and pump salt out of the gills.  At this point they are 6 to 8 inches.  Will go downstream to a lagoon or the ocean and after 1 – 2 years in the ocean (variable time.) Some can spawn more than once, but most don’t – most die afterward. 

Sometimes – show gillnet marks on the salmon – during the drought in the 60’s – they went to Alaska.

 

Pink flesh – indicates ocean going.

Anadromous means go to fresh water to spawn; (steelhead and salmon are anadromous).

 

Scales on the fish are like tree rings on a stump – information on how long in the stream or ocean.  There are enormous variations in what the fish do.  Here – it’s 2 to 3 years before going to the ocean.  And many don’t go.  Need stream gravel to slip for their nests – that water can flow through. They can mature and spawn in a stream and not go to the ocean.  Need survival during wet and dry years.  Even fish in the same generation have different patterns.  Variations are genetically determined.

 

Over the years and up to now – more fine sediment in the streams – and fewer fish.  One of biggest offenders is 4 wheel drive cars on wet and muddy roads – every time you pass over wet road, it puts mud into water which flows into the creek. The real problem with silt is when it happens when there is not a big flow in the creek; there is not enough water to carry sediment away.  This reason we are so interested in getting a look at how are roads are working.

 

Don’t take wood and trees out of streams.  Training we have been to so far says: “Let the stream take care of itself.”  Stop sediment from getting into creek, get out the car batteries and obvious pollutants, but leave it alone to heal itself.

 

Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP)- Jonathan Berkey / Daniel Mountjoy

These two were instrumental in getting the Carmel River Watershed Council off the ground by leading the early discussions.

 

CRMP – problem solving and management process at local level. It results in improved management and minimized conflict. Alternative to the regulatory approach. Based on resource management, not politics or government.  Works with the full system – each watershed is one system with each person involved.  Helps solves conflicts finding common ground – i.e. creek walk notion – discussion, and respect for others philosophies.  Not a regulatory agency but can help break down barriers in face to face w/ government officials.  CRMP is common interest in the land and its resources and cooperative planning. With all problems listed – going to a better solution. All problems linked – resource problem, to legislation to regulation to litigation – we can identify resource issues and the education process and come up w/ a plan and fix it.  Different approach: use of education – instead of enforcement – start w/ the landowners, not government regulation.

Establish priorities from the first – locally led. Action oriented – goal is to produce a plan that will be used  – we can be part of and not left out – we want a say in the future of our community.

 

Some points about the CRMP process (for more information go to  http://ceres.ca.gov/cacrmp )

1.        Define boundaries and identify issues: (see our list below)

2.        Community Involvement – group has to include squeaky wheels – involve everybody up front.

3.        Work with resource people – but our group plans four our community:

4.        Democratic process – inclusive

5.        Partnership approach – with neighbors and government agencies

6.        Voluntary action – shared effort – responsibilities and success.

7.        Identify goals – list management goals and objectives to help in funding process – have to be clear.

Prioritize – things to succeed with at first – do able projects – builds community.

 

Jonathan recommended - “Do something while you’re planning to do something.” Such as seeking funds and partners to implement the plan.

Know resource issues – tap into multiple resources (‘stone soup process’ = something from nothing) labor, funding, teamwork, and equipment.

Monitoring and staying on top of it – working over time – maintenance, El Nino changes etc.  Better as pro-active.

Develop a plan for guidance to the agencies – paperwork should use government language – well thought out and written plan which speaks their language.

Web site – http://ceres.ca.gov/cacrmp.

 

Existing watershed councils in our areaalong the CRMP model:

 

Carmel Valley

Carneros Creek

Pajaro River

Corralitos Creek

Scotts Creek

Arana Gulch

Soqual Creek

San Lorenzo River

 

There was a brief talk about needs:

How to begin: we need a watershed coordinator – to coordinate all landowners and pull in resources.

The GCWC is looking at getting salary money for a coordinator. We will use mostly volunteers and agency time to do work.

 

 

Break out session: Issues and Concerns (facilitated by Jonathan and Daniel:

 

-          Identification of community

-          Road Construction

-          Education of community and public agencies

o        Watershed issues

o        Real Estate Agents (new-comers)

-          Eradication of Non-Native Species

-          Water Quality

o        E.Coli- Septic, animals

o        Silt- Roads, grading, natural

o        Pesticides- Ag Sources

o        Giardia

-          Fire Management

o        Road size, construction- silt

o        Brush clearing- slit

o        Controlled burns- silt, nutrients

o        Cape Ivy – useful or not

-          Restoration

o        Stream bed   } Following Non- native plant removal

o        Upland          } Logging roads

-          Imbalances

o        Log jams from cut logs

o        Oak tree die-off

o        Lack of fire (45 year cycle)

-          Fish Habitat

o        Silt from roads

o        Migration barriers, log jams

o        Lack of deep pools

o        Cape Ivy along streams (toxic)

o        Water quality / Quantity

§         Annual variation

§         Water diversion

§         Runoff from development

-          Road Pass ability

o        Slides

o        Culvert size and spacing inadequate

o        Maintenance of culverts

o        Energy dissipaters

o        Road side ditch size

-          Development of New Homes

o        Infrastructure adequate? Are current standards appropriate?

o        Participation of all residents

 

Special thanks to Jonathan Berkey  and Daniel Mountjoy for helping us collect these inputs and all of the help; a very special thank you to John Williams who came all the way from Sacramento!

Thanks to Alex Kane for compiling these minutes.

 

/Ken Ekelund

2 January 2001

 

 

Next general Meeting is 17 March 2001 at 1:30 pm at the home of Richard and Sally Taylor (59431 Garrapatos Road).

Check our web site at http://www.garrapatacreek.org for more information.