Chehalis Basin #*

Partnership Meeting

Chehalis Tribal Center - Casino Bingo Room

Meeting Purpose: - Present the Scoring and Interview Panel's recommendation on which consulting team should be retained to carry out the Level I Watershed Assessment; presentation by the recommended consulting team; review status of the Salmon Habitat Restoration grant application and learn about future salmon recovery grant opportunities; report from the Citizen Advisory Committee; report on the Chehalis Flood Project.

Chair: Mayor Bob Spahr, City of Chehalis (360/507-3149) Vice Chair: Dr. Sodhi, Chehalis Confederated Tribes (360/273-5911)

Introduction

Mayor Spahr opened the meeting and welcomed Lewis County Commissioner Graham back after being away for several months due to other obligations.

A quorum made up of sixteen Partnership members was present

I. Information Sharing

Pe Ell Mayor John Penberth announced that today the State Department of Health and the County Health Department would be lifting the boil-water order that had been imposed on the town for the last 1 5 to 16 months. The Mayor expressed that although it has been a difficult time for Pe Ell, this demonstrates that small communities can succeed when given the opportunity

II. RFP Level 1 Assessment

The Focus of the Level 1 assessment is gathering and assembling existing data into a form that can be used by the Partnership to make decisions about what additional data must be collected during a Level 2 assessment.

Marc Duboiski brought the group up-to-date on the status of the consultant selection process for the Level 1 assessment. The scoring and interview panel evaluated proposals received from nine consulting teams. The panel recommends that the following four consulting teams be interviewed (these names are listed in alphabetical order, there is no other significance to the order in which they are named):

• Envirovision Corporation
• Golder Associates
• Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
• Tetra Tech Inc.

All consultant teams that submitted proposals will be notified by mail.

Interviews with the four firms named above will be scheduled for Wednesday July 21, 1999 and a final recommendation will be presented to the full Partnership by the scoring and interview panel at the July 23, 1 999 meeting.

The members of the scoring and interview panel are John Penberth, Pe Ell; Mike Daniels, Grays Harbor County; John Hare, Chehalis Tribe, Mark Swartout, Thurston County; Ed Johnstone, Quinault Tribe; Marc Duboiski, Lewis County; and Kahle Jennings, Ecology.

III. Status of Grants

At the direction of the Partnership, a salmon habitat restoration grant application was submitted. The results of that application should be available by the July 23 meeting.

The key component for receiving future funding under the salmon habitat restoration initiative (ESHB 2496) is completing the Limiting Factor Analysis for the Chehalis Basin. Those areas which have a completed Limiting Factors Analysis will score higher in the ranking process so we may be limited in our eligibility for Salmon Recovery Funds (2496) because the Limiting Factor Analysis for the whole basin will not be done for years. There is a hope that the Partnership will be eligible for funding in those sub-basins in the watershed where the Limiting Factors Analysis has been completed.

Kahle Jennings recommended that even though the Partnership will not request additional 2514 Watershed Planning funds during the current state fiscal year that we submit a letter to Ecology expressing our intent to apply for funds during the second year of the state biennium. This will help Ecology project biennium needs for the $9 million that is available during the biennium for 2514 watershed planning.

A request was made that an effort be made to find, or compile, a summary of what grant funding sources are available, and when grant applications are typically due for each source. There is a lot of confusing information out there about the various grant opportunities that are available and not much coordination between the agencies or organizations that are responsible for administering the grant funds. This will be looked into.

IV. Featured Presentation - Local Government and the E.S.A.

Alan Copsey, Assistant Attorney General for Washington State representing Community Trade and Economic Development presented information to the Partnership on local government responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. Alan is directly involved in the affects of the state Growth Management Act on local government. However, there is a relationship between the GMA and the ESA. The central issue is that if local government has authority to protect habitat for an endangered species and doesn't use that authority to protect habitat, the failure to use the authority could be considered a 'taking" under the ESA.

Alan covered the five relevant sections of the ESA:

Section 7 - All federal agencies are obligated to consult under the ESA before taking action that might affect a listed species. If a state or local action is consistent with an accepted federal agency consultation then the state/local action meets the requirements of section 7.

Section 9 - This section makes it a federal offense to 'take" an endangered species. The definition of a 'take" under the ESA includes killing or harming an endangered species. Harming includes harming the species or the habitat the species depends on.. Section 9 includes both criminal and civil liabilities.

Section 4(d) - authorizes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to adopt rules to implement the ESA and protect listed species. Local groups can make recommendations on how to protect listed species and those recommendations can be adopted by NMFS under section 4(d).

Section 10 - provides another way to escape the issue of 'taking' a listed species through the development of a Habitat Conservation Plan. Action consistent with an approved HCP are not considered a 'take.'

Section 11 - authorizes citizen lawsuits to enforce provisions of the ESA This section includes a provision for recovery of attorney fees.

A couple of Alan's main points for local governments faced with ESA compliance were:

• In the mistaken belief that they will be safe from liability under the ESA some local governments have tried the approach that the best course to take is to do nothing. Doing nothing can result in a "taking" under ESA
• .Local governments are required to comply with state and federal laws designed to protect water quality. However, complying with these wale quality laws does not by itself provide protection from a "taking' under the ESA.

V. Update on Chehalis Flood Project

Lewis County Commissioner Richard Graham provided a brief update on the Chehalis River Flood Management Project. Lewis County signed a contract for $300,000 to continue work. A larger amount ($800,000) is available once an agreement is signed with the State Department of Transportation. A letter is being sent to DOT to find out the status of that agreement.

VI. Report from Citizens

Using some of his work as a private citizen on water issues in Black Lake as an example, J. Roach provided some thoughts about the need to manage data. Agencies and organizations are accumulating a lot of information under watershed planning, salmon recovery, or other local initiatives. This data has been paid for with public funds and it should be made readily accessible to local government and private citizens. The subject of data management and data accessibility has been discussed by various members of the Partnership, but nothing formal is being done at this time to address data management issues.

This presentation generated a general discussion about the need to manage data and data accessibility. There was general agreement that this was an important topic and this is a good time to begin the discussions. The Partnership will be selecting a consultant for the level one assessment at the July 23 meeting. A large part of the Level 1 assessment will be to search out and compile existing information on water quantity, water quality, and fish in the Basin. This is an opportunity to begin developing a system to make data available. If the Partnership does not provide direction on this issue early on during the assessment, it is possible that the completed Level 1 assessment will end up determining what the data management system will be structured.

Margaret Radar agreed to bring this topic up at the next Citizens Advisory Committee meeting for discussion so that the citizens group can coordinate with the CBP Scoping Committee. An effort will be made to develop this issue more fully and present the results to the Partnership at the August meeting.

Copies of some of J. Roach's handouts are enclosed with this summary.

VII. Recommended Future Agenda Topics

Review the status of Limiting Factors Analysis currently underway, and the results of those that have been completed. (Contact is Carol Smith)

VIII. Wrap UP/Adjourn

The next Chehalis Basin Partnership meeting will be held on July 23, 1999 at the Chehalis Tribal Center starting at 9:00.

This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council