II. Chairperson(s):

Sarah Young explained that she has been chair of the SPW. With the great interests from the Core Group and others, she got District Management’s general support for getting a co-chair for the workgroup. The collaborative leadership would allow the team to

 Be more responsive to WMI Core Group’s interests in this work and to

 Allow Sarah to wear Project Manager’s hat, to deal with project management issues      more      objectively.

Members responded to this proposal favorably, and supported Luisa Valiela, the EPA representative, who has been with the WMI since the beginning, would serve as the co-chair for this workgroup along with Sarah Young

III. Meeting Schedule:

Sarah Young inquired about the possibility of changing the meeting date or time to accommodate more SCVWD staff. After examining the pros and cons, the group reached consensus to keep the existing schedule (third Monday of the month) with the flexibility to change as need arises.

IV. On-Going Work by Consultant Team

 Primary task is web-based information systems (WBIS) allowing posting all information to the      web, Tetra Tech has the lead.

 Stakeholder engagement strategies, DC&E to take the lead.

 Selecting methodologies and determining role of historical ecology in plans.

 Refining schedule. Dates in existing schedule to be pushed back a month (or more, due to      holidays)

It was stated that there are requests for stream selection to occur soon. The kick-off meeting for the Steven Creek TMDL occurred last week, and there exist opportunities for coordination.

Consultants suggested there is a need to hold a kick-off meeting for the project soon.

V. Public Involvement Meetings

20 Public meetings are included in the scope of work. Six are public meetings. The remaining 14 are budgeted for internal and external stakeholders.

DC&E explained basic outline for meetings:
Level 1 meetings: internal stakeholders
Level 2 meetings: include external stakeholders such as those in SPW
Level 3 meetings: public workshop (need to define who is this larger public is: very broad public, or the +/- 200 people in the basin who are actively involved in watershed issues)

Members shared the following concerns for the Team’s considerations:

The need to look at all three watershed areas equitably

Different watershed areas differ in stakeholder understanding and experience in  working     through watershed issues, in status of information gathering; and in their   needs. The     Engagement Strategies needs to address these differences. For example,     the existing Steven     Creek sediment study is an example of study with which this effort     could share resources, but     creates urgency in selecting creeks to be studied.

“visioning” may be to broad a topic for a workshop. In the meantime, there is a need to   have a     long-range vision in the plans and to create a plan that is visionary and      
    self-implementing.

Holding a workshop following the completion of the plan may be problematic. It’s  important to     have appropriate stakeholders engaged throughout the planning process.

Some felt that the plans would focus on areas where stewardship planning efforts are     currently occurring. Stevens Creek and Permanente will begin having councils. Guadalupe     currently has its own process.

In addition, stakeholder management strategies should clarify ways to:

involve local stakeholders appropriately

get locally active stakeholders interested in larger, system-wide issues

tie into the Collaborative and its strengths

tie into local efforts, such as Guadalupe Watershed Integration Work Group, San  Francisquito     Creek Watershed Council, and Stevens/Pemanente Watershed Council

VI. Selection of watersheds or watershed areas

A discussion was held regarding the criteria and selection of watersheds to be studied. The following issues were identified:

 The need to refer to the three “watershed areas” when talking about subject of  stewardship     plans

 The need to look at all three watershed areas equitably

 The existing Steven Creek sediment study is an example of study with which this effort  could     share resources, but creates urgency in selecting creeks to be studied.

Discussion followed regarding the selection of creeks or watersheds to be studied. Some felt that the plans would focus on areas where stewardship planning efforts are currently occurring. Stevens Creek and Permanente will begin having councils. Guadalupe currently has its own process.

VII. Stakeholder Interviews

In support of devising stakeholder engagement strateties, the Contract included (15) stakeholder interviews with people knowledgeable about on-going effort in specific watersheds and creeks, as well as knowledgeable about the larger picture issues. Members brainstormed the list of stakeholders to be interviewed and offered possible grouping suggestions:

1.  District management staff /District technical staff
2. Environmental Groups: Trish Mulvey/Craig Breon/Mondy Lariz/Keith Anderson, Streams for      Tomorrow
3.  Regulatory/Resource Agencies: Fish & Game/NMFS/RWQCB/COE/EPA/USFWS
4.  GCRCD
5.  cities (PA/Cup/Sunnyvale )
6.  San Jose (on its own)
7.  SCVURPPP
8.  WAS/Libby Lucas/Phil Bobel, Lorrie Gervin, Michael Stanley Jones, WMI Core Group
9.  GWIWG, SFC Watershed Council
10. County Planning and County Parks and Open Space Districts
11. VTA/CalTrans
12. Politicians and elected officials ?
13. Silicon Valley MG/Chamber/Homebuilders

Questions to be asked in stakeholder interviews should feed into the development/prioritization of management questions, selection of watershed assessment methodologies; and determining the scale for longitudinal profiling.


VIII. Future Discussion topics with the SPW and discussed at the Nov. 17 meeting:

Priorities in the different watersheds

Management questions (DC&E to develop November agenda w/Luisa and Sarah)

Questions for stakeholder interviews (DC&E to bring list)