• The Planning Committee approved the charter. The Planning Committee agreed that 2 of the 4 water agencies and 2 (formerly 1) of the 4 non-profit organizations serving on the Coordinating Committee would need to adopt the final IWRMP endorsed by the Planning Committee. A few remaining issues may need to be amended: 1) Including CABY goals once finalized and 2) voting issues when lacking consensus

.

• The WEAP Model will be developed to cover the entire CABY region over the course of the next year. A CABY IRWMP demonstration project that can be analyzed in conjunction with the El Dorado Irrigation District’s WEAP efforts already underway might be referenced in the plan and included in detail in the appendix to demonstrate how WEAP will be used to prioritize and compare the benefits and effects of different projects during plan implementation.

• The Planning Committee agreed that it would frame integration by organizing the plan around issues of concern since it is most pertinent to plan users. Integration will also address other dimensions and complexity such as regionalism.

Upcoming Dates

Sequencing to Approve Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

The Planning Committee will review and approve the goals, objectives and strategies at its June 21^st meeting. To prepare for this meeting, Ecosystem Sciences will to refine the draft goals, objectives, and strategies developed by workgroups taking under consideration mandatory plans, issues of concern identified by workgroups, and other information gathered during its tour.

Feedback on Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

The Planning Committee provided feedback to workgroups on the draft Goals, Objectives, and Strategies. Ecosystem Sciences will make a recommendation on how to address climate change across all the management areas. The Planning Committee also recommends that climate change might be addressed in the guiding principles.

Water Supply

• Agreed that IRWMP should acknowledge that Auburn Dam has its own separate process, which CABY is not going to affect.
• Consider ability to enhance water supply through landscape management. Strategy might be to protect and preserve forest as a strategy to improve water supply.
• Consider strengthening collaboration (Objective 1, #4).
• Connect efficiency with increases in in-stream flows.
• Address flood impacts within CABY boundaries. Also reflect need to coordinate on flood issues downstream. (Objective 6)
• Support adjacent regional IRWMP planning efforts’ objectives where feasible. (Objective 9)

Water Quality

• Consider calling out appropriate sedimentation (Objective 2).
• Clarify what impaired water bodies and 303(d) means for the public.
• Method of prioritization could address impaired bodies that aren’t 303(d).
• Suggest calling out “stormwater capture management” since it is discussed a lot without using those words.
• Consider addressing floodplain function and stormwater management (Strategies in Objective 7).

Environment and Habitat

• General concern that the number of strategies is so much greater than other two work groups. Ecosystem Sciences will consider this and may pull out recommendations related to recreation, as a way to demonstrate overall balance across goals and management areas.
• Consider using the word “invasives” instead of “noxious”. (Note: Workgroup manager to follow-up because group recommended “noxious” since some non-native invasives can be beneficial.) Consider using term “weeds”. (Objective 1, #6)
• “Promote” best management practices because agencies are already developing mandatory stormwater management plans.

General screen for all Goals, Objectives, and Strategies is:

• Capacity of organizations to carry out
• Gap analysis
• Enforcement of laws and policies
• Economic incentives

Integration Framework

Ecosystem Sciences proposed to organize the plan by issue of concern. The Planning Committee concurred that organizing by issue is sensible since most readers want to see their issue and how it is addressed. Ecosystem Sciences will also consider all the goals and objectives and make recommendations on additional management plans, such as recreation.

Throughout the conversation, the Planning Committee suggested that the plan consider integration across:

• Watersheds
• Region
• Goals
• Multiple Benefits
• Actions / Projects

Discussion…What about?

• Regional nature of CABY: demonstrating collaboration and strategies from the regional perspective
• Don’t lose recreation as a major benefit
• Addressing fuels and fire
• Data management system as part of the tool box
• Wastewater treatment and costs—this continues to be a critical issue for agencies given population growth.
• Consider naming benefits on chart organized by issue
• Prioritization: successful method in one region could be adopted in other regions. Supports regional integration.

WEAP Model

David Purkey, Natural Heritage Institute, and David Yates, The National Center for Atmospheric Research, made a presentation on the WEAP (Watershed Evaluation, Assessment, and Planning Model) Model and its potential value for CABY. WEAP is a modeling tool for integrated water resources planning. It provides a comprehensive, flexible, and user-friendly framework for planning and policy analysis. Purkey and Yates have funding from the EPA to expand the model to the CABY region. This work will likely occur over the course of this year. Since David Yates is working on developing WEAP to meet EID’s needs, the Planning Committee recommended that a sample study might be developed in concert with that work and highlighted briefly in the plan and detailed in an appendix to demonstrate the potential of the tool.

Before the presentation, Planning Committee members formulated questions that WEAP might address:

• What are the goal levels for water quality conditions?
• How does the system respond to a particular action?
• Will restoration efforts in one stream under certain conditions apply to another?
• Can we predict a measurable benefit from changing channel morphology? Termperature? Discharge? Habitat?
• Can we use it to look at fisheries?
• What are the impacts of ramping rates on fisheries?
• What is the impact of fuel reduction on flows?
• What is effect on groundwater storage in fractured environment? On recharge rates?
• What are the effects on runoff patterns associated with grazing, horses, urban uses, hobby farms, etc?
• How can it help to compare, plan, meet and reconcile environmental goals?
• In extreme low water years, would we meet needs? Where does water come from? Where is it available?
• What are the impacts of a severe drought?
• How does climate change effect patterns of precipitation and snow level? Flooding? In-stream flows?
• How does vegetation affect supply?

Membership Updates

Planning Committee Membership Additions

County Representation

• Supervisor Nathan Beeson, Nevada County
• Edmund Sullivan, Placer County Planning Department
• Bill Hetland, El Dorado County Water Agency, will represent County for now

Agriculture

• Dan Macon, Nevada County, unable to participate on Planning Committee
• Kirk Scilacci, considering joining the Planning Committee from Placer County
• Other representatives from agriculture are attending workgroup meetings

Developer

• John Costa, Building Industry Association, considering joining Planning Committee

Other Membership Issues

• Alan Erghott from the American River Conservancy will not participate as a Planning Committee member because American River Conservancy does not play an advocacy role.
• Sue Britting is participating in workgroups and Planning Committee meetings when possible. She provides expertise on the Cosumnes River.