Present:
Fraser Sime, Dennis Heiman, Jim Ham, Jim Wilcox, Ken Cawley, Kevin Pond,
Kris Kingsley, Terry Benoit, Ken Roby, Denny Churchill, Pat Huckabee, Leslie
Mink (recording)
There was no agenda prepared for the meeting other than an email listing of what would be discussed.
1) Presentation
of database developed by Jim Ham and Kris Kingsley of DWR: Jim presented features of the database they
developed, and gave the CRM staff a copy of it on a CD. After some discussion, it was decided that
the CRM staff currently does not have the expertise nor the money and time to
invest in the skills needed to populate and maintain this database. Pat Huckabee from DWR was also at the
mtg. She can work with Leslie this
year, before 6/30 to re-organize the monitoring data into excel spreadsheets
that resemble a database, instead of the current site-specific file
structure. The only problem with this
is that Leslie has no funding for monitoring right now. As soon as there is some funding, Leslie
will get together with Pat and look at the database.
2) The
rest of the mtg was spent on review comments on the draft final report of the
SWAMP watershed monitoring grant. The
final report of this grant, basically included all of the watershed monitoring
data collected since 1999, even though this grant funded the program only since
2001. The following points were
discussed:
-
Does the geomorphic monitoring really reflect
what’s going on in the watershed, or is it more reflective of the site? Ken Roby’s response was that it reflects
on-site disturbance more if there is a lot of on-site disturbance. If there isn’t, it probably is a better
reflection of upstream conditions, and that SCI was meant for smaller
watersheds (like 10,000 acres) than where the CRM sites are. Ken Cawley added that using just one
sampling site for such a large area could be problematic. It was decided to continue with the geomorphic
monitoring, but to re-evaluate each site for parameters to be monitored and the
appropriate frequency. (This was included in the final version of the
report). Ken Roby also mentioned that
there is MS thesis work being done using all of USFS R5 SCI data to see how
well it does reflect changes in watersheds.
It should be noted that pebble counts are good for gravel substrate
reaches, and that they are biased toward larger particles.
-
Are there other technologies available such as
remote sensing that can help us assess channel morphology, riparian and meadow
habitats that may be better than SCI surveys?
Denny Churchill mentioned that satellite imagery can be used to ID wet
areas. We could see what is available
on the NRCS and USGS websites.
-
Should we beef up sediment monitoring? There was not a consensus to do a higher
level of sediment monitoring at this time, mainly due to expense, and the
limited value of the data, because it can be influenced by so many things in
the watershed.
-
Should we continue water quality
monitoring? Since water quality (other
than temperature and sediment) is not a major concern in the watershed, it was
suggested to use the bug sampling as a screen for further metals
monitoring. Nothing was decided about
the other constituents.
-
More effective integration with other monitoring
– this report can be useful to the Ag waiver monitoring, and needs to be better
coordinated with the Forest Service SCI effort.
-
Other comments on the report included:
o Program
objectives and design need to be stated more clearly.
o Executive
summary needs to be longer and really summarize the report.
o List
significant findings in bullet statements.
o Make
more definitive conclusions per site.
o Discuss
long-term strategy, stating what should be collected where, and at what
frequency, and the rationale behind each monitoring regime (like is the site
being monitored for water supply beneficial use, to help out with Ag waiver
monitoring, because there is increased disturbance in the watershed, etc.)
o Get
a set of the most recent aerial photos of each site.