| II.
|
Refresh
the Original Scope of the SPW and Outreach Strategies |
| |
Sarah provided the
members with original SPW Work Plan and Outreach Strategies
developed last year based on lessons learned from the Coyote
SSP. She also reinterated interests from members participating
in the Water Resources Protection Collaborative and District’s
upper management, regarding these three stewardship plans.
|
| III. |
Progress
on Contracting with the Consultant Team |
| |
A. |
Planning Process |
Clayton outlined the planning
process which involved four levels of engagement from different
stakeholders. Members suggested some revisions/clarifications
and the revised approach is outlined as follows: a comprehensive
planning process that will achieve coordination and capacity
building at discrete levels to enable progressively expanded
focus on consensus building on watershed stewardship planning
elements; allow horizontal process to supports integrated
planning consistent with anticipated outcomes of the Collaborative;
and encourages vertical integration (staff to director, internal)
within each organization recognized as an important factor
for achieving the desired outcomes for planning process.
- Level 1 meetings shall focus on clarifying
the scope and schedule for key milestones; identifying
key issues/management questions; building consensus on
dealing with uncertainties. The outcomes of these meeting
shall be disseminated through existing WMI or Collaborative
networks for their information.
- Level 2 and 3 meetings shall be held periodically
grouping key milestones for review allowing for the watershed
stewardship plan to be built progressively throughout
the process.
- Public workshops (Level 4 meetings) for
specific watershed areas shall be held to present the
complete drafts for public review and comment. District
staff, WMI, and Collaborative members will participate
in the presentations, panel discussions, or consensus
building in moderated and facilitated sessions.
|
| |
B. |
Uses of the Plan |
The group discussed the uses
of the Coyote SSP, and suggested the team to consider the
following uses in developing the three watershed stewardship
plans:
- Providing the basis for budgeting District’s
watershed stewardship activities;
- Devising a dynamic ranking system which
would allow the prioritization of programs or projects
within the watershed boundaries;
- Establishing opportunities or constraints
for meeting multi-objectives/uses;
- Improving accessibility, transparency,
and timeliness for sharing water resources management
information and land use opportunities (it was recognized
the extent of improvements can be identified through the
contracting/planning process).
FIGURE
OF APPROACH TO WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP PLANNING PROCESS |
| IV. |
Linking with Other Groups
|
| The group also recognized
the varying interests from many groups and suggested the team
to: |
| A. |
maximize the benefits of the consulting
services, taking into consideration of the Grant requirements,
the stakeholder interests, and the profiles of the consultant
team. |
| B. |
Links with other programs/collaboratives
such as the Water Resources Protection Collaboratives, SCVURPPP
(C3 New Development Provisions/Hydromodifications Management
Plan (HMP)), County’s Riparian Protection Ordinance,
needs to be further clarified. |
| V.
|
Role of the
Stewardship Workgroup |
| A. |
Formalize the WMI – Collaborative
-Others – Tech Staff line of communication.
|
| B. |
Maintain the workgroup as the
technical arm, and maintain linkage/responsive to policy guidances |
| C. |
Further linkage with planning
staff from the cities/county to participate in relevant work
group activities |
| D. |
D. Maintain open-membership to
the group and ensure agendas, meeting notes readily available
to those interested. |
| VI.
|
Supplemental
Information |
| A. |
Next meeting June 16, 2003
|
| B. |
Working Website: http://cf.valleywater.org/_wmi/Stewardship_plan/ |
| |
|
|
