Chehalis Basin Partnership Agenda and Prior Meeting Notes

Chehalis Basin Partnership

M e e t i n g S u m m a r y - July 28, 2000

NOTE: A request was made before the July meeting that Partnership meeting summaries provide more detail on who makes individual comments. Rather than providing a 4 to 5 page summary of the meeting, this approach will result in a longer document. The summary for the July meeting will be prepared with more detail. If future discussion by the Partnership results in adoption of the detailed summary as the preferred approach it may be necessary to begin taping the meetings and having an actual transcript prepared by a qualified individual.

Introduction

Chairman Bob Spahr opened the meeting. He presented three jars of water and asked those present to try and tell which one was city drinking water, which one was treated effluent from the Chehalis wastewater treatment facility, and which one was river water from the Chehalis River above the outfall of the wastewater treatment facility. The river water was noticeably darker and less clear than the treated effluent. He then offered to take a drink of the treated effluent if someone from the audience would take a drink from the untreated river water - reminding everyone first that the effluent had been treated and chlorinated. There were no takers to his offer! The Chairman, who is also the Mayor of Chehalis, explained that the City's effluent is already cleaner than the water from the river. Still, the city is being required to spend millions of dollars to build additional treatment capability to remove the small amount of organic material remaining. It looks like the most likely alternative for the city will be to remove its effluent from the river altogether during summer low flow periods and use the water to irrigate hybrid popular trees. He questioned the benefit to the river of removing the city's approximately 1 million gallons per day of effluent at a period of the year when the river is already nearing low flows. He also questioned the cost of the project for a city that already has a functional wastewater treatment facility.

The Chairman asked if there were any visitors and the following people introduced themselves: Kathy Tennyson, Chehalis Basin Land Trust; Mac McWhorter, Port of Grays Harbor Commissioner and Phil Trask, WDFW.

Attendance: Sixteen designated representatives or their alternates attended this meeting. There were thirty additional citizens, alternates, or visitors that attended.

Chehalis Land Trust (Agenda item #1)

Janet Strong presented the following information on the Chehalis Land Trust.

MISSION STATEMENT: The Chehalis River Basin Land Trust, a not-for-profit corporation, was established in 1994 to provide a means for citizens to conserve, protect and restore ecologically significant lands within the Chehalis river Basin.

The Land Trust raises funds and solicits for grant funds to support the stewardship of donated property and easements. Under certain circumstances the Land Trust may purchase properties. The Land Trust will undertake on-going educational programs to promote the goals of the Trust, to heighten awareness of its services, and the need for stewardship and conservation of natural areas within the Chehalis Basin.

A Land Trust is a private, non-profit organization of citizens dedicated to the conservation of lands in their natural, scenic or historic state for the benefit of future generations.

LAND TRUSTS -

Accept land donations

Accept bequests

Establish conservation easements

Purchase lands or easements

Care for land in perpetuity

Maintain funds for stewardship

Create broad base of community support

Are non-partisan, non-political organizations

CONSERVATION EASEMENTS CURRENTLY HELD BY THE CHEHALIS LAND TRUST:

57 acres of forested shoreline along Chehalis River containing wetlands, large cottonwood stand and fossil cliffs (Galvin area).

10 acres of forested wetland along E. Hoquiam River (Hoquiam area).

7 acres of diversified second growth forest (McCleary area).

100-acre farm containing wetlands, tidal sloughs and pastures on north shore Grays Harbor.

36 acres of nature forested wetland along Humtulips River.

5.75 acres of forested wetland along Cispus River.

PLANS FOR FUTURE: Develop a basin-wide plan to identify and seek to protect the best and most beautiful natural areas in the Chehalis Basin for our grandchildren and all succeeding generations. Build partnerships with cities, towns, counties and agencies with a common vision of conserving beautiful natural areas for the whole community.

Conservation Easements and Financial Planning Workshop: Friday, October 27, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., Pearsall Building, Sumner Avenue, Aberdeen.

Consensus (Agenda item #2)

Kahle Jennings (Ecology's Partnership member) summarized the information from the Partnership's by-laws on decision making through consensus. In section V. CONDUCT AND FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS the by-laws state: "Actions of the Partnership shall be conducted according to a consensus decision making process." The by-laws reference Appendices "A" and "B" which explain the consensus decision making process.

Kahle began the presentation with the statement that consensus is both 1) a process and, if the process is successful, 2) a result.

THE PROCESS OF CONSENSUS BASED DECISION MAKING

Discuss the issue so that ALL points of view have been expressed. Invite everyone to speak.

Canvas the group to see if everyone feels there has been enough discussion about the topic and the group is ready to try to make a decision.

Canvas the group to find out those in favor of the action, and those opposed. (This is very much like voting to reach a decision, but under the consensus process, the decision is not determined in favor of the majority.)

If there are opposing views, those in the minority (pro or con) get the floor and the opportunity to convince others to adopt their position. Once they are done, they need to be asked "Do you think you have now been heard by others in the group? Is there more you want to say? Are you ready to have the entire group vote again?"

Canvas the group to find out if agreement has been reached. If there are still opposing views, repeat the process. This process continues until those in the minority are able to say:

"We are clear about what the majority would like to do. While we personally would not make that choice, we do think the others understand our alternative. We've had sufficient opportunity to sway others to our point of view, and we do think we have been heard."

Clearly, decision making through consensus is more inclusive. It also carries with it the possibility that reaching agreement can take a lot of time.

THE RESULT OF CONSENSUS

The following six types of agreement reflect consensus. (Solutions that result in types of agreement closer to the top of this chart are preferred.)

Endorsement :"I like it."

Endorsement with A Minor Point of Clarification :"Basically I like it."

Agreement with Reservations :"I can live with it."

Abstain :"I have no opinion that prevents this from going forward."

Stand Aside :"I really don't like this, but since I haven't been able to convince others to change their minds I am ready to go along with what the majority wants."

Formal Disagreement, But Willing to Go with Majority :"I do not favor the proposed alternative supported by the majority, but I'll support the decision, and I wish to include a dissenting opinion for the record."

These following two types of responses by one or more interest groups indicate a lack of consensus:

Formal Disagreement, with Request to Be Absolved of Responsibility for Implementation :"I don't want to stop anyone else, but I don't want to be involved in implementing it."

Block :"I don't support this proposal and will work to see that it won't be implemented."

At this point the group decides whether to go back to the consensus process or to table the issue. However, if the group decides to table the issue, it has in effect decided in favor of the "do nothing" alternative, whether that is supported by the majority or the minority.

Follow-Up Question and Discussion: How did the Partnership decide on the consensus model for decision making?

John Penberth explained that the original group that came together to form the Partnership negotiated the Intergovernmental Agreement. The Quinault Tribe would not agree to sign the agreement unless decision making was done through the consensus process. Brian Shea added that the Partnership was formed with the intent of not being another governmental or bureaucratic process, so consensus is consistent with our goals. Mayor Spahr said that the intent of the Partnership in adopting consensus was to work through issues, not to adopt a decision making model that would allow one person or group to prevent reaching a decision. John Sims added that the intent of the consensus process is to ensure that the view of the minority is not minimized, often answers that better meet the needs of the group come from the minority view. Hang-ups during the consensus process can lead to innovative solutions. John Penberth finished the discussion with the observation that just because the group can't reach agreement in one or two meetings doesn't mean the consensus process stops. It can continue over time. What complicates things is that decisions are often driven by calendar deadlines. That reality puts additional pressure on using consensus to make decisions.

Lead Agency Report (Agenda item #3)

Envirovision Contract: Joy Michaud provided a handout showing the proposed organization for the Level 1 2514 Assessment (see attached). She used the handout as an outline for describing the status of the various sections.

Section 1 Introduction

Section 2 Watershed Description

Section 3 Technical Summary

Section 4 Selected Sub-Basin Assessment

Five sub-basins were selected based on how much stream gage data was available, land use patterns, topography, etc.

Section 5 Pilot Exempt Well Study

The approach identified in the assessment workshop was to do a pilot study in one or two sub-basins. Two of the five sub-basins were selected because of the amount of information available. A computer model is being applied to the data.

The assessment is proceeding according to schedule. A review draft should be out by the middle of September.

Update on Limiting Factors Analysis: Carol Smith provided an update on the 2496 limiting factors analysis (LFA).

The results of the LFA are the Lead Entity's technical basis for reviewing salmon recovery projects before they are submitted to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board.

Because the Chehalis Basin is so large it was divided into sub-basins for the purpose of preparing the LFA. The status of those sub-basins is as follows:

Satsop (completed)

South Fork Chehalis (completed)

Upper Chehalis (completed)

Estuary (completed)

Humptulips (nearly completed; in review)

Skookumchuck (completed; in review)

Wynoochee (in progress)

Newaukum (in progress)

The following sub-basins still need to be done:

Hoquiam, Wishkah, Johns, Elk and Cloquallum Rivers

Scatter Creek

Black River

Lincoln and Independence Creeks

Porter, Gibson, Stearns, Garrard and Rock Creeks

Mainstem portions of the Chehalis not already done

The sub-basins that still need to be done are somewhat data poor, so they will go more quickly.

How is the LFA report related to the Salmon Recovery Project list? The LFA defines habitat problems. The Salmon Recovery Strategy developed by the Lead Entity defines solutions to the problems, and prioritizes among the solutions or between watersheds. The project list addresses individual problems.

How to use the Limiting Factors Report: Use the recommendations to develop the strategy and guide projects. Use the assessment table to prioritize solutions (poor conditions should be a high priority for restoration; good conditions might be a high priority for conservation). Use Data Needs section to develop proposals for studies to gather additional information.

One of the things Carol has been struggling with is how to get information to everyone for review and comment. She finally decided that the best way would be to set up a web location where it can be accessed. The address is http://members.home.com/bioforsalmon/home.htm (you have to use that exact address). Some people have problems with accessing the site due to their equipment or server.

Carol cannot fix those problems so if you have them you will need to request printed copies.

The final report will include a map for each sub-basin with fish distribution, riparian conditions and distribution of large woody debris. Some sub-basins will have additional maps.

Carol and Mark Wenger are writing the assessment. They rely on the 2496 Technical Advisory Group to provide the basin habitat data and information. They have found that there are a lot of data gaps in various portions of the Chehalis system so they are also seeking out information from knowledgeable citizens or fish recovery groups in the basin.

Question: how do you select your citizen input? In other basins where Carol has worked on LFA there were citizens with a lot of knowledge or experience about the river. One example would be a fisherman (or woman) who has floated the river for years. We went to the Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force. If you know of some person or group that would be able to provide information for the LFAs you should contact Carol or Mark with a contact name and phone number.

QUESTION: Does someone actually go out into the field to check the information? No, LFA are prepared using existing information. It relies on the expertise of the field staff that actually compiled the information being used.

QUESTION: Has the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers been involved at all? They have been invited to the meetings and Carol has talked with them, but so far they haven't shown up at the Technical Advisory Group meetings.

Results of Planning Workshop: Due to the length of the meeting so far and the need to have time to discuss the next agenda item this topic was deferred until later in the meeting. As it turned out, the meeting lasted an hour longer than anticipated and this topic was not discussed.

Salmon Recovery Funding (Agenda item #4)

Update on the Lead Entity Advisory Group (LEAG) (John Sims, Quinault)

The LEAG is made up of nine Lead Entity members appointed by the WDFW Director selected from nominations statewide. Although the nine members come from individual Lead Entities and cannot represent the thoughts of all Lead Entities across that state, they can come back with questions and poll Lead Entities not represented on the LEAG.

John said if he could provide one observation about the Salmon Recovery Funding Board's funding process, that observation would be that it is a work in progress. The SRF Board recognizes that the Early 2000 round had some problems but they are open to suggestions and changes to improve the process. Lead Entities need to stay engaged at least for the next couple of years and give the SRF Board process time to develop. The process is evolving and there have been some positive changes since the Early 2000 funding round. One example is the SRFB Technical Review Panel. The members of that panel will visit all Lead Entities between August and October to answer questions and provide suggestions. This is a big change and a positive one.

Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment Proposal (Jim Scott, WDFW)

Jim Scott has been working with groups interested in improving fish stocks in the Chehalis Basin. That effort is sometimes referred to at the "Bristol Court" group. It turns out that there are a lot of different studies related to fish in the Chehalis Basin, but not a lot of understanding or agreement about where we are and where we should go in terms of fish enhancement and recovery. The big question is "How do we take all the information in these reports and put it into a package that is useful?"

One approach is called Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment, or EDT. EDT is an analytical model that can be used to predict changes. Jim showed an example that compared river flow to fish survival rates. The model can be used to help decide what fish enhancement efforts make the most sense. EDT has been, and is being, used in the Puget Sound and Columbia River.

Jim met with the CBP Technical Advisory Committee and discussed the EDT process with them. The TAC thought it would be a useful tool for the work the Partnership is doing. Jim's goal is an integrated package of partners, tools and funding leading to successful restoration of salmonids in the Chehalis Basin. Jim is here today to find out if the Partnership is interested in supporting his seeking "seed money" from the WDFW to begin the EDT process. WDFW can not fund the whole effort but could start the process. Once the benefits of EDT can be seen there would have to be an effort to find additional sources to complete all the work, perhaps through the SRF Board funding process. The work funded by WDFW would be useful based on its own merits, it just wouldn't be comprehensive across all the issues affecting fish in the basin.

Chehalis Mayor Bob Spahr expressed support. He felt that information provided by EDT would help lead to more knowledgeable decisions - such as the dissolved oxygen TMDL Ecology developed. This TMDL will cost Chehalis $40 million dollars and result in water being taken out of the river during low flow conditions. We need to know if this type of requirement is the best place to spend those dollars to benefit salmon.

Margaret Rader confirmed that the TAC talked with Jim Scott and thinks this would be a good effort to support.

A general comment was that money is seductive, but accepting it can carry a lot of responsibility. The Partnership is struggling to figure out how to accomplish all the things we have to do. We need to have Grays Harbor County, our Lead Agency, evaluate this and advise us.

Mark Swartout said that Thurston County supports this approach. It has been done in the Nisqually Basin and was successful. WDFW would be leading the effort so this should actually relieve demands on Partnership member's staff.

Sue Patnude reminded the Partnership that WDFW has its Watershed Stewardship position. WDFW is currently developing the work plan for that position and this could be made a part of it.

John Penberth said he appreciated the presentation and that he needs time to digest the information and take it to the Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force. He recommends we get some information out in writing to review and decide at the next Partnership meeting (August).

Brian Shea said the Aberdeen is amenable to moving forward if it will serve the needs of Grays Harbor County as Lead Agency and the Partnership.

A question was posed to Jim Scott: How critical is the timing? His response was that the EDT process could begin once funding is allocated by WDFW. That funding will provide the information WDFW needs to focus its salmon enhancement work, but it won't be enough to complete a salmon recovery plan. To accomplish that will take additional funding. If WDFW agrees to provide seed money for the EDT a lot of the information it needs will be completed by the time the SRF Board makes its decisions on the Late 2000 applications. If we are going to approach the SRF Board with a request to fund the remainder of the EDT process time is a limiting factor since an application will have to be developed by September. WDFW can take the lead in preparing the application.

J. Roach asked "What if we find out that EDT isn't working in the Chehalis Basin?" If that turns out to be the case, any additional funding can be held back. We'll get the portion of the work funded by WDFW we just won't fund the rest. This process has been used in other areas successfully, so it's not an experiment. It works.

Lonnie Crumley commented that the Limiting Factors Analysis being prepared by Carol Smith and Mark Wenger would be a major contributor to the EDT process. EDT won't duplicate work that is already being done, it will build upon it.

John Sims ask "Is there a risk that the 2514 Watershed Planning process could be taken over by this?" Kahle Jennings commented that he felt this would be a big contribution to the watershed planning effort. The amount of 2514 funds available is limited. The legislation requires that we develop a plan that addresses river flow/quantity. Although we said we intended to also address water quality and fish habitat those components are optional. The Chehalis Basin is so large that we may not have enough 2514 funding to address the optional water quality/fish habitat components. The EDT process will be a big step towards addressing fish habitat issues. Mike Daniels said he agreed, this would help us accomplish what we want to do.

DECISION: the members of the Partnership present reached consensus that it would be a good idea to support WDFW funding to implement the EDT process in the Chehalis Basin and approach other funding sources for the portion WDFW doesn't have the resources to fund. Kahle will work with Mayor Spahr to generate a letter from the Partnership to WDFW expressing this support.

A packet describing the EDT process in more detail was made available to interested Partnership members.

Willapa Watershed Thoughts on Salmon Recovery (Ron Craig)

Ron is a member of the LEAG along with John Sims. He also has been active in fish enhancement in the Willapa and represents the Pacific County Lead Entity.

He will be sharing his thoughts on three topics today: Salmon Recovery funding "process" vs. "Projects," the Willapa Basin (WRIA 24) approach to salmon recovery, and funding for Lead Entities.

"Process" vs. "Projects"

The current SRF Board approach is too focused on process rather than being focused on recovery projects. The process that has evolved has inadvertently placed rural Lead Entities at a disadvantage in the competition for funding. As a result, the funding sources are not equally available to rural Lead Entities.

Pacific County spent a total of $17.00 on the Early 2000 round of salmon recovery projects as Lead Entity. They simply didn't have the resources to do more. Local fish enhancement groups did all the work on the application

Ron wants to know "Are we trying to set up a process to save salmon, or are we trying to save salmon by doing projects?" He said he would continue to press the SRF Board on the issues of making the process simpler and providing more support for rural Lead Entities.

The Willapa Basin Approach to Salmon Recovery

The Willapa Basin believes that the following steps are needed to achieve effective salmon recovery:

Build capacity to acquire the necessary background information/data.

Develop a project-specific recovery strategy.

Develop individual projects.

Implement the projects.

Monitor effectiveness.

Ron is not a great proponent of developing a big document that spells out the recovery strategy for the whole basin. Statewide, too much emphasis is being placed on developing individual project proposals and very little is being placed on evaluating the success of projects. He encouraged the CBP to get as much information as we can through processes such as Limiting Factors Analysis and Ecological Diagnosis and Treatment.

Funding for Lead Entities

Ron asked three questions: "What is the capacity funding criteria for Lead Entities?" "Should Lead Entities for basins that cover multiple WRIAS get more capacity building funding than those that those that cover a single WRIA?" "Should Lead Entities that cover huge basins get more capacity funding that those that cover small basins?" He feels that to carry out the Lead Entity responsibilities effectively it really requires a full-time person. The following factors should be considered when determining how much a Lead Entity should get:

Diversity of habitat

Number of full WRIAs in the Basin

Size of the Basin

Ratio of salmon habitat to urban area in the basin

Does the WRIA really contain any salmon habitat

Effectiveness of the dollars spent

Other funds available to the Lead Entity

Population profile - economy, wage level, unemployment

Number of people in the core habitat area

Complexity of the local social-political issues.

The bottom line is that rural Lead Entities are never going to become sophisticated unless we get some funding to support the work.

Late 2000 SRF Board Salmon Recovery Funding Process

The question before us today is "should the Chehalis Basin Partnership support local salmon recovery projects and endorse participation in the Late 2000 salmon recover funding process?

Brian Shea indicated that the City of Aberdeen wants the Partnership to continue to participate. Chairman Spahr asked if they were going to even be any projects to submit to the SRF Board. Positive responses came from Aberdeen, and on behalf of Lewis County Conservation District and Columbia Pacific RC&D. There are sure to be others, including the projects that were not funded during the Early 2000 cycle.

The question was asked "What prevents individual project proponents from submitting projects directly to the SRF Board and the CBP not having much to do with the process?" The response is that the SRF Board process requires that all projects be submitted through the lead entity, which includes review of the project priority list by a citizen's committee.

John Penberth reviewed the issue as it was left at the end of the June CBP meeting. At that meeting the Partnership was not able to reach consensus because the Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force (CBFTF) -- which he represents as alternate for Doug Fricke -- objected. The current CBFTF position is that the process is cumbersome and not very effective. The CBFTF spent approximately $10,000 in preparing projects for the Early 2000 funding cycle and didn't get one project funded. The SRF Board is a non-regulatory agency that is putting demands on local Lead Entities. Lead Entities need funding support from the SRF Board to meet the demands that are being put on us.

At the last CBFTF meeting they were not in total agreement, but the official position of the CBFTF is that they do not want the Chehalis Basin Partnership or Grays Harbor acting in its administrative capacity for the CBP to solicit for projects this cycle. A process whereby individual proponents develop projects and Grays Harbor County puts them directly into an envelope and sends them unevaluated and unranked should be implemented.

Mike Daniels: The Lead Entity can't just send them in, there is a process that the SRF Board has established that must be followed by the Lead Entity. This includes presentation of the projects to the SRF Board's Technical Review Panel and responding to questions about both the projects and the local project solicitation, review and prioritization.

Phil Trask, WDFW representative, expressed some confusion: didn't Grays Harbor County receive a grant of $126,000 to perform this type of activity? Mike Daniels responded that this is an issue that needs to be discussed and worked out. There is some confusion about what responsibilities Grays Harbor County assumed when it agreed to take on the responsibility when Lewis County could no longer do it. Right now we don't feel we have the approval of the CBP and WDFW to use the 2496 funds under the contract to support the SRF Board process.

Sue Patnude said that WDFW Region 6 has resources that are available, and there are other administrative models that could be used. Grays Harbor County shouldn't be expected to carry the burden of the work alone. There are enough staff resources available from other Partnership members so that it shouldn't be necessary for Grays Harbor County to expend a great amount.

Reviewing our current situation, we've got a lot of the basin Limiting Factors Assessment work completed and we've got people who want to submit habitat projects.

Rob Schanz (Chair of the Citizen's Advisory Committee) said that they thought the Partnership should go forward and support the submittal of recovery projects to the SRF Board.

Mike Ramsey (IAC) said that this is not a rural vs. urban issue. The Early 2000 cycle funded a lot of rural projects. The strategic vs. opportunistic issue and the culvert issue hit everybody on the "West Side" real hard. Questions raised during the Early 2000 cycle have been answered and the process is more defined this time. The chair of the SRF Board has said "this is the grand experiment." The Chehalis Basin Partnership needs to move forward.

Mark Swartout: I don't know if we can change John Penberth's mind or not, but Thurston County has groups within the county that want to submit projects and Thurston County wants the Partnership to move forward.

Brian Shea, speaking for the City of Aberdeen, said that his comments might appear to be self-serving, but that this is an issue of fairness. Grays Harbor County put a lot of time and effort into the last cycle, and Aberdeen appreciates that. Aberdeen also spent a considerable amount of time participating in the review and ranking of state Centennial Clean Water Grant Projects so that other Partnership members could benefit from the additional point's local prioritization resulted in. We are going to be upset if we can't submit projects and have the same opportunity to seek funding.

Mike Daniels: We are always under a time crunch. Grays Harbor County looks forward to the support of Partnership members if the Partnership decides to go forward.

John Sims suggested that the CBP decide to move forward and submit projects for the Late 2000 round. Then we can re-evaluate the process and decide what to do next.

Chair: I tend to agree with John Sims that we should move forward. Do we agree to go ahead?

Jon Hare (Chehalis Tribe) I would like some clarification about why the CBFTF doesn't want to move forward. Maybe we can address their issues so they can be comfortable going forward.

John Penberth: I was advised to take a "blocking" position on reaching consensus on this issue. I am only the spokesman. The CBFTF meets again in two weeks. If they decide at that meeting to change that position he will contact Grays Harbor County and let them know they will no longer block consensus.

Mac McWhorter, Port of Grays Harbor, supported the position of the CBFTF.

Jon Hare repeated his question: "what are the CBFTF issues?" John Penberth replied:

The application form and application process is burdensome and expensive.

The SRF Board didn't follow the local prioritization submitted by the Lead Entity.

There isn't any funding coming from the SRF Board to support the Lead Entity Process. The legislation forming the SRF Board says that the SRFB may provide Lead Entity funding and the SRFB shall establish criteria for block grants to be administered by the Lead Entity for local salmon recovery projects. They haven't done either.

The SRF Board came into the picture late - long after the CBP had began work on watershed planning and salmon recovery. Now they are putting demands on the CBP about how we do this work.

What is the SRF Board going to do if the CBP doesn't submit projects this cycle? Are they going to put Grays Harbor staff in jail? No. Since the last meeting we put this issue on the Internet, and no one has contacted the CBFTF.

Chairman Spahr: Are we agreed that if the CBFTF contacts Grays Harbor County (administrative Lead Entity for the CBP) and tells them that they have decided to change their position and agree to having the CBP to go forward and support solicitation, evaluation and ranking of salmon recovery projects for the Late 2000 salmon recovery funding cycle that we have reached consensus on this issue? Is that consensus?

Question to Grays Harbor County: is there enough time if we wait two weeks for the CBFTF to meet and get back to us? Mike Daniels responded "we will assume that we are moving forward during the next two weeks and begin developing our process until we hear otherwise from the CBFTF."

John Hare: the CBFTF has legitimate concerns, but they seem to be directed towards the SRF Board "Process." Hopefully, we can assure them that we want to address those issues.

Jim Haslet: Napavine is just a small player, but the things we talk about here can have a devastating effect on our community. That is why we participate in these meetings. If the Partnership doesn't take an active role in proposing what should be done, how long can we refuse to participate before they write us off completely and decide what we will do for us?

John Sims: What is the worst-case scenario? Aberdeen and others would submit projects and the Lead Entity would forward them to the SRF Board and report that our citizen process is flawed due to not reaching consensus.

Mike Daniels: If in two weeks the door is still closed, we would need to come back to the CBP with a "plan B."

Mike Ramsey (IAC) to John Penberth: have you gone to the SRF Board with these issues? John: "Yes, through the Lead Entity."

Mike Ramsey: If the CBP doesn't come forward with projects from the basin the worst thing that will happen is that no projects from the basin will get funded. You are not sending a very strong message to the SRF Board.

Scott Brummer (Thurston CD): There are groups out there who want to submit projects. If we don't work within the system, they don't have any chance of getting funded.

Rob Schanz (CBP Citizen's Advisory Committee): The CBFTF can make their point by choosing not to participate and not submit projects for funding.

Brian Shea: That's an appropriate response.

Citizen's Advisory Committee Report (Agenda Item #5)

A summary of the July 12th CAC meeting was handed out at this meeting. Since it was not mailed out with the July meeting packet a copy is included with this summary. The CAC provided the following comments at today's meeting during its report:

The CAC members present at the July 12th meeting discussed the Partnership's participation in the "Late 2000" Salmon Recovery Funding Cycle and agreed that the Partnership should participate so that groups in the basin with projects that are ready to go have an opportunity to apply for the funds.

A reminder that a canoe/Kayak float trip on the Chehalis River between Oakville and Porter is scheduled for tomorrow, Saturday July 29th. There is still time for interested persons to participate. The group will be meeting at the boat launch just west of Oakville at 10:00 a.m.

Flood Control (Agenda Item #5)

Rick Turnbull reported for Commissioner Graham from Lewis County. In the House the amount for this project was doubled from $250,000 to $500,000. The Senate has appropriated $1.75 million. The two need to meet and agree on an amount before the President can sign the bill. If agreement is reached the funding will be available at the beginning of the Federal fiscal year -- October 1, 2000.

Open Comments (Agenda item #6)

Dave Rountry (Department of Ecology) gave a quick update on the Grays Harbor Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL. Since the briefing to this group in April, the technical study report has been published. The bacteria loading reductions haven't changed and there will have to be significant reductions in all parts of the basin. Remember that 50% of the fecal coliform bacteria loading to Grays Harbor comes from the upper Chehalis River Basin (WRIA 23). The next step is to develop a clean-up plan. Dave Rountry will be responsible for coordinating that effort, and he wants to include a very strong citizen's component. The first meeting will be scheduled for early September. Dave offered a FOCUS sheet to anyone who is interested, and said that it is very important that those folks who might be affected by the clean-up decisions participate in the process of developing the clean-up plan.

Mayor Spahr asked if there would be Public Hearings with Public Notices sent out in advance? Dave Rountry replied that a schedule for Public Hearings has not been established yet because we are still nowhere near being ready for that. Some outreach has been done through news articles and seminars. This effort will continue. After the clean-up plan has been prepared (with lots of citizen involvement) we will move into the Public Hearing phase.

Red Cox commented that Ecology must make sure that they get someone out into the upper river valley rural communities about this issue.

J. Roach gave a brief update on Black Lake salmon habitat restoration projects. Three blocking culverts are being replaced. This will connect to parts of the county park. People will now be able to observe salmon that return to the Lake.

Jean Takekawa was introduced. She is the Nisqually Wildlife Refuge Manager. The USFWS is interested in a wildlife refuge on the Black River and Jean is the lead for that project.

Mike Ramsey (IAC) announced that he had copies of the SRF Board Late 2000 funding applications if anyone was interested. He promised to be a bulldog with the SRF Board in developing a defensible process.

Wrap-up/Adjourn (Agenda Item #7)

The meeting was adjourned one hour late (12:30). The next Chehalis Basin Partnership meeting will be held on Friday August 25, 2000 in the Bingo Hall of the Chehalis Tribe's "Lucky Eagle" Casino from 9:00 to 11:30 a.m.

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