Friday February 25, 2000
9:00 to 11:45 AM
Chehalis Basin Partnership Meeting
Chair: Mayor Bob Spahr, City of Chehalis (360) 507-3149
Vice Chair: Dr. Sodhi, Chehalis Confederated Tribes (3 60) 273-591 1
Meeting Purpose: Receive latest information on continuing activities and provide direction on how to proceed with watershed planning and salmon recovery efforts.
Decisions Needed: 1) Direction on Scope of Work/Budget for remainder of 2514 Assessment Project. 2) How to proceed with local prioritization of state CCWF/SRF grant applications
| >- | INTRODUCTION | Mayor Spahr | 9:00 AM |
| I. | 2514 Assessment Project Status Report/Discussion | Lee Hansmann | 9:05 - 9:45 AM |
| II. | Update on Interview with Salmon Recovery Funding Board Project Review Panel | Lee Hansmann, Kahle Jennings, Craig Olds | 9:45 - 10:00 AM |
| III. | Caspian Tern Relocation | WDFW | 10:00 - 10:30 AM |
| IV. | Present Results of GIS CDROM Pilot Project for Chehalis Basin | J. Roach, DNR, DIS | 10:30 - 11:20 AM |
| V. | CCWF/SRF Project Ranking | All | 1 1:20 - 11:30 AM |
| VI. | Jobs For the Environment - Letter of support for CPRC&D | Jim Walls | 10:30 - 11:35 AM |
| VII. | Report from Citizens Advisory Committee | Citizen Representative | 11:35 - 11:40 AM |
| VIII. | Update on Flood Projects | Richard Graham | 11:40 - 11:45 AM |
| IX. | Open Comment | Audience | 11:45 - 11:55 AM |
| X. | Wrap-Up/Adjourn | Mayor Spahr | 11:55 AM |
Meeting Summary - January 28, 1999
Introduction
Mayor Spahr welcomed members and opened the meeting. Sue Patnude informed the group that she has taken a position with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and introduced Terry Vietz, City Council Member from Ocean Shores, who will be representing the City on the Partnership. Randy Neff, representing Mason County introduced himself.
Mayor Spahr informed the group that Ed Moerke, a citizen representative from Lewis County had passed away during December. Ed Moerke owned a well drilling business and had also been serving on the Lewis County Water Conservancy Board.
Attendance: Nineteen designated members or their alternates signed the attendance roster at this meeting. There were seventeen additional partners, citizens, or visitors that attended.
Lead Agency/Lead Entity (Agenda Item #I)
Mike Daniels introduced Lee Hansmann. Lee is the Deputy Director of Community
Development - Utilities and Development Division, and will be serving as the primary
Grays Harbor County contact for all matters relating to the functions of 2514 Lead
Agency and 2496 Lead Entity.
Lee informed the Partnership that she is working with Lewis County and Ecology to close out the 2514 contract between Ecology and Lewis County and negotiate a similar contract between Ecology and Grays Harbor County. The contract with Lewis County must be closed out before a new contract can be signed. She also discussed the need to amend the Intergovernmental Agreement and by-laws to record the change in Lead Agency. A short discussion followed about other changes that may be appropriate to consider at this time. Since there are about 50 signatures on the agreement and it states that changes can only be made if there is written consent by all parties, there may be some benefit to reconsidering how future updates to the agreement would be handled.
Lee finished with a discussion of the resolutions recognizing the change in Lead Agency status that had been sent out by Lewis County to the parties to the Agreement. She thanked Lewis County for their work to make the transition go smoothly.
Update on 2514 Level I Data Assessment Project (Agenda Item # 2)
Grays Harbor County, with assistance from the TAC and individual Partnership members, has been meeting with Envirovision to negotiate a scope of work for the second stage of the Level 1 Assessment they were retained to do. The first stage was to gather available information, compile a list of the information, and hold a workshop to identify how they should proceed to evaluate that information to identify gaps that need to be filled. The evaluation of the information to identify gaps will occur under the second stage of the Level 1 Assessment. The highest priority information gaps identified under the Level 1 Assessment will be filled under a separate "Level 2" Assessment.
Priorities identified in the workshop that were not included in Envirovision's original proposal and delays due to the transition in lead agency will result in increasing the cost of the Level 1 Assessment. Right now, there appear to be two basic options: 1) Scale back the scope of the Level 1 Assessment and stick to the original budget, or 2) Spend more on the Level 1 Assessment and live within the remaining budget for the Level 2 Assessment (filling information gaps). The difference would amount to approximately $20,000.
A general discussion about various aspects of the issue followed including the need for flexibility, the need for clear direction to Envirovision, and concerns about sticking to the budget. In the end the Partnership referred the issue back to Grays Harbor County with the instructions to develop a recommendation on the final scope of work and budget for consideration at the February meeting.
Salmon 2496 Fish Biologist Position (Agenda Item #3)
When Grays Harbor County agreed to assume the responsibility of acting as 2514 Lead Agency and 2496 Lead Entity they said they would carry out the responsibilities by partnering with Columbia Pacific RC&D and Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission. The biologist will be an employee of CPRC&D who will in turn contract with Grays Harbor County to work on behalf of the Partnership on the 2496 Salmon Recovery grant. The Tasks the biologist will be working on are clearly defined in the 2496 grant contract with WDFW. CPRC&D has taken the lead in the process to hire the fish biologist and will provide other direct support such as supervision and possibly office space. CPRC&D will not receive any type of reimbursement from the 2496 grant for administration or supervision of the fish biologist. Grays Harbor County actually directs the work of the fish biologist on behalf of the Partnership.
Jim Walls of CPRC&D informed the group that there were 30 applicants for the position. A screening committee narrowed this down to 5 applicants that would actually be interviewed. After the interview process it was clear that all five candidates were qualified. The interview panel narrowed the list to three candidates and Jim is contacting references. Jim and Lee ask the Partnership for approval to offer the biologist position to the most qualified candidate and negotiate a salary/benefit package within the allowable budget. After a general discussion of all the issues outlined above,
the Partnership agreed that CPRC&D should proceed to hire the most qualified candidate they can within the budget provided by the grant.
Salmon Recovery Funding Applications (Agenda Item #4)
Lee outlined the Process used to solicit for, evaluate, and rank habitat restoration projects that the Partnership would submit to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board for consideration. -The Partnership Technical Advisory team met with Grays Harbor staff several times to define the process and identify the technical staff that should be on the evaluation/ranking team. One of the important discussion points was how to avoid potential conflicts of interest since some of the members of the evaluation/review team might also be involved in submitting projects for consideration. It was decided that team members would not evaluate and rank any project they were submitting. All scores were averaged for each project, based on the number of people who submitted a score or ranking for that project. This ensured that a "zero" score or ranking for a project did not skew the results and that someone didn't artificially inflate the final score of their own project.
Eighteen projects were submitted and the team did a great job of evaluating and ranking the projects in a very short time. The evaluation/ranking team is forwarding eight of the projects to the Partnership with the recommendation that they be submitted to the SRFB for funding (see attached list). The team felt that most of the remaining ten projects would be appropriate to submit at a later date if they were able to address issues that the team felt needed to be addressed. To facilitate this the team scheduled a debriefing session for Tuesday February 8th and each project proponent would be invited to attend and discuss their project with the people who evaluated it.
After general discussion, the Partnership accepted the list as proposed. The list of projects and the Partnership's application for funding will be delivered to the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (which is handling the contracting work for the SRFB) Monday January 31. The final step will be to attend an interview session with the SRFB project evaluation panel to explain the process used to identify specific projects.
Citizens report (Agenda Item #5)
The Citizen's Advisory Committee did not meet in December. J. Roach, one of the CAC members, used this time to explain the work he has been doing to support the Partnership's interest in assuring that access to basin information is available to all parties. Mr. Roach has spent a lot of time meeting with agencies and other groups that gather and/or manage "information" or "data" to find out what they are doing to assure that the information can be shared and that it is accessible to the public. He has found that there are no universal standards at this time to ensure that data can be shared, but that work is progressing towards compatibility. He has spent quite a lot of time meeting with individual legislators and legislative staff to support the need for legislative action in support of information compatibility and accessibility. There is a possibility that the legislature will fund several local pilot information management efforts, and he has been working to get some funds added to that program so that a pilot can be done in the Chehalis Basin.
Mr. Roach was thanked for his efforts and members of the Partnership were reminded that we should all be grateful for his work in support of something we are all interested in.
Update on Flood Projects (Agenda Item # 6)
Rick Turnbull updated the Partnership for Commissioner Graham who could not attend.
A handout covering the information he presented is attached to this summary.
Open Comment (Agenda item #7)
The US Army Corps of Engineers has issued public notice on its Environmental Assessment regarding efforts to relocate Caspian Terns from Rice Island in the Columbia River. This relocation effort could result in large number of terns showing up in Grays Harbor. This might be reason for concern and the Partnership expressed interest in having someone come to the February meeting to discuss the issue. The opportunity for public comment ends February 18th.
Jim Walls informed the group that CPRC&D has recently found out that there is a lack of recognized standard accounting practices that state agencies apply uniformly to nonprofit corporations. This creates problems for non-profits working under state grants. CPRC&D will be meeting with Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation in the next couple of weeks to discuss this issue and will report back to the Partnership what it learns.
The next Chehalis Basin Partnership meeting will be held on Friday February 25, 2000
at the Chehalis Tribal Center starting at 9:00.
Due to the extensive agenda, the February meeting may go up to one-half hour beyond the normal 11:30 adjournment time.
Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New Eighteen Project Proposals submitted.
Eight High Priority Projects listed in ranked order:
Early 2000 Salmon Recovery Project Priority List
|
Project Name |
Total Project Cost | Grant Request |
| Newaukum River Off-Channel Habitat | $33,985 | $28,430 |
| South Fork Chehalis River Culvert replacement | $110,343 | $39,305 |
| Gaddis Creek Culvert Replacement | $41,000 | $32,800 |
| Coal Creek Culvert Replacement | $48,006 | $29,711 |
| Scatter Creek livestock Exclusion (fence) and Revegetation | $17,760 | $14,360 |
| Humptulips River Estuarine Habitat Acquisition | $300,000 | $120,000 |
| Creamer's Off-Channel Spawning/Rearing Habitat Restoration | $33,000 | $23,000 |
| Canyon River Upland Revegetation | $95,951 | $83,426 |
| Total | $680,045 | $371,032 |
Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New
Lewis County's Flood Control Project
The current focus is: attempting to regain the $550,000 from DOT's budget that was taken back as a result of budget cutbacks caused by passage of I-695.
Additionally, Richard Graham and others are working with the legislators to appropriate the $1 million that was supposed to be forthcoming this year (prior to passage of I-695). This may come through a different route than through the DOT budget.
If the money doesn't come through, Lewis County will not be able to match federal grants and the project may be put on hold, 'three years, five years, or indefinitely."
Richard Graham believes legislative leaders support providing state funding but the issue must be pushed strongly by our local representatives.
He thinks all entities will be asked for $9,000 apiece to keep the operation running during the time of the legislative session and to make sure the money is appropriated.
If you have questions, please call Richard Graham. Except questions about mapping and engineering studies should be directed to Pacific International Engineering or the Corps of Engineers. BOCC office 360-740-1120.
PIE- Harry Hosey- 425-744-7700
Corps - Forrest Brooks - 206-764-3456 ext. 529
Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New
CBP Citizen's Advisory Committee Meeting
February 9, 2000
Present: Margaret Rader (TC), Rob Schanz (LC), Earl Emerson (TC), Gary Waltenburg
(GHC), Jim Bottorf (MC), Bill Barmettler (LC)
Agenda: SRFB grant status; Envirovision's progress on the Level 1 Assessment; taking stock of where the CAC is and where we're going
Jim Bottorf, the newest Mason County citizen, introduced himself to the group. He has been interested in joining for months, but the paperwork moved along very slowly. Jim asked what exactly the CAC does, so we talked a bit more about what the original goals were, and where we're at now. One of the issues that the CAC has brought up several times with the CBP but not really made much progress on is public outreach. We're concerned that the general public has no idea of what is going on, and will feel they've been blind-sided when the CBP finally gets around to making recommendations to restore the Chehalis.
SRFB GRANT STATUS
Rob Schanz explained the process by which the CBP evaluation/ranking panel ranked the eighteen projects that were submitted. Eight projects were judged to be ready and were ranked and sent on to the SRFB. Most were fish passage projects. Others consisted of off-channel restoration, sediment control, and a land acquisition. Margaret Rader is on the TAC, which determined the make-up of the ranking committee, so between Rob and Margaret we got a good idea of how this was all put together.
Jim Bottorf, noting that some of the rankers also had submitted projects to be ranked, was concerned about conflicts of interest. Rob acknowledged the point, but explained the measures the group had taken to alleviate these concerns. It was agreed that this was something the CBP should try to address in future ranking processes.
Bill Barmettler talked for a bit about the project he is involved with, a culvert replacement on Coal Creek. Bill got lots of help from the Lewis County Conservation District, and said that the process would have been overwhelming without their involvement. The application specified replacing the culvert with another pipe, but Bill is now looking at the possibility of spanning the creek instead. Jim and Gary both had helpful suggestions for finding out about getting a railroad flatbed installed for a crossing.
There was some discussion about large woody debris, engineered vs. random modifications to the waterways, culverts, etc.
LEVEL 1 ASSESSMENT - ENVIROVISION
We discussed Envirovision's progress on the Level 1 assessment. Rob had a copy of a pre-report. Apparently Envirovision has requested more money before finishing the assessment. We discussed some of the problems that may have contributed to this. The CBP is a large, unwieldy conglomeration that has many different agendas and a less-than-clear idea of where it's going with this whole process. This is not an ideal situation for any consulting group to face. The TAC hopes to be talking with Grays Harbor County and Envirovision soon.
The question of how deeply the Level . 1 assessment should delve into the Grays Harbor estuary remains.
OTHER
We discussed J. Roach's continuing efforts to ensure that all parties work toward developing an information sharing system that is compatible. He was testifying in Olympia in support of funding a pilot information project in the Chehalis so he couldn't attend our meeting.
Discussion touched on a diverse range of subjects. One that keeps coming up is the issue of streamside buffers. It was agreed that we would ask Kahle to line up someone who can address this whole issue of buffers. One of our questions is how many different kinds of buffers there are, so this person should be an expert on Shorelines/NMFS/Forest and Fish Agreement/GMA/Conservation District buffers. Is there any such individual?
Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New
Summary of JFE 2000 Grant Application Request
By Jim Walls,, Columbia-Pacific RC&D
The new JFE grant request has been changed and I believe improved. You do not submit any projects in the application. You submit an application and budget for Assessment,, Monitoring, Design and Construction. If your grant is approved then you submit a Work Request Form for approval of the work you are going to do, on a project by project basis.
Eligible Applicants: State, local governments, Tribes, and non-profit organizations.
Funding: Phase I - $150,000 maximum contract until June 30, 2001 Phase II - $215,000 maximum contract until June 30, 2003
Phase II is only going to funded if additional funding is secured. The legislator did not pass JFE legislation out of the Appropriation Committee this past week. There, however, is still $3 million in the Salmon Recovery Board for JFE should they decide to give it to the program. They have already said no once to a request for the funds by DNR.
Basic Requirements:
1) 60% of the direct costs must be spent on salaries and benefits for dislocated natural resource workers.
2) Applicants must provide evidence of being self-insured.
3) The JFE program is requiring grant recipients to provide technical expertise in the development, design and implementation of the specific activities within the JFE scope of work.
4) All landowner agreements will be 10 years, no exceptions.
5) Lead Entity must supply a letter of support for the applicant.
6) An applicant can only submit one application.
7) Applications due March 15, 2000.
Summary: In our biased opinion, the RC&D meets and exceeds the requirements JFE are looking for and therefore, we are interested in submitting an application. Since there is no additional funds for submitting an application for both the Upper and Lower WRIA, we would like to submit an application for the Lower Chehalis (WRIA 22). Would recommend that another entity apply for the Upper Chehalis (WRIA 23). This strategy could get the Chehalis Basin $300,000 versus one entity doing both WRIA'S. The downside is that one WRIA might not get funded and not get any work accomplished under JFE funding. If the Chehalis Basin Partnership does not like this strategy and asks the RC&D to be the application for both WRIA'S, we will do that.
This one page summary of the grant was prepared so the Chehalis Basin Partnership could make a decision on February 25th at your regular meeting. Hopefully, this summary will assist in a meaningful discussion at the meeting.
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council