Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New
DATE: Friday April 26, 2002
TIME: 9:00 to 11:30 AM
NEW LOCATION: Labor & Industries Auditorium, Tumwate
| A. General Partnership Business | - | 9:00 a.m. |
| 1. Welcome, introduce members and new visitors | (5) | Chair |
| 2. Identify special issues of concern and adjust agenda | (5) | Members/Chair |
| 3. Committee Reports | - | - |
| Citizens' Advisory Committee | (5) | Rob Schanz |
| Steering/Technical Committee | (10) | Mark Swartout |
| Water Quality Sub-Committee | (5) | Kahle Jennings |
| 4. Other Business | - | - |
| Other Updates | (10) | Members |
| - | - | - |
| ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN AT THIS MEETING: | - | - |
| Act on the recommendation of the Citizens' Advisory Committee to adopt the Public Involvement Plan. | - | - |
| - | - | - |
| Accept Water Quality Sub-committee prioritization of local grants/loans/strong> | -- | -- |
| -- | -- | -- |
| B. Special Project Status Reports, Budget Updates and Committee Reports- | - | 9:40 a.m
. |
| 1. Watershed Planning Project (RCW 90.82) | (30) | Grays Harbor County |
| Status Report | - | - |
| Contract Issues | - | - |
| 2. Salmon Recovery Project (RCW 77.85) | (15) | Grays Harbor County |
| Results of SRF Board Funding Request for Chehalis Basin | ||
| 3. Army Corps of Engineers Work in the Chehalis Basin | (5) | Beth Coffey |
| Flood Damage Reduction Project sponsored by Lewis County Ecosystem Restoration Study Sponsored by Grays Harbor County | (5) | Lori Morris |
| ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN AT THIS MEETING: | - | - |
| Provide Direction on Contract Issues | - | - |
| C. Special Presentation | - | 10:40 a.m. |
| Water Rights in the Chehalis Basin - What do we know? What do we not know? | (40) | Lee Daneker, EPA |
| - | - | - |
| D. Open Comment | - | 11:20 a.m. |
| Any remaining issues identified in agenda item A2 | (10) | Audience |
| E. Chair Adjourns Meeting | - | 11:30 a.m. |
Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New
NOTE This Partnership meeting was held in conjunction with one of the four study area meetings so the meeting was shorter than usual. This summary does not include the study area portion of the meeting.
Introduction
The acting Chair opened the Chehalis Basin Partnership portion of the meeting. Fifteen of the Partnership's thirty-two member organizations had a representative or alternate at the meeting. Sixteen additional citizens, alternates, or visitors signed the attendance record.
Level 1 Assessment Detailed Summary
Cynthia Carlstad from TetraTech/KCM presented an overview of the detailed summary of the Level 1 Assessment. A copy of the executive summary of this document was included in the packet sent out for the meeting. This presentation was on the final product. A short general discussion of the detailed summary ended with consensus to approve the detailed summary of the Level 1 Assessment.
One specific question was recorded: "Does the Level 1 Assessment include an analysis of municipal water (or other water) that is withdrawn from the river/tributary system under a water right, permit, etc., used, and the remaining water returned to the system?" The answer is No. The Level 1 Assessment focused on compiling existing information and information on return flows or actual consumptive use has never been compiled. This is the kind of information that can be considered under the Level 2 portion of the assessment which focuses on filling data gaps.
Flow Monitoring Grant Proposal
The legislature awarded the Watershed Planning Act to provide supplemental funding for Local Planning Units that choose to evaluate the need for, and recommend in-stream flows. In basins where the Local Planning Unit chooses not to do the work, the Department of Ecology is delegated the responsibility for setting flows.
Regulatory in-stream flows were set at 31 control points in the Chehalis Basin in 1976. Several flow gauging stations were established. However, flow monitoring has not occurred at 15 of the 31 control stations. The result is that no one can say whether or not all the in-stream flows set in 1976 are being met.
A scope of work for the supplemental funding to monitor flows at the 15 stations where data in not available has been developed. This data can then be compared to the 1976 regulatory flows and more recent work that has been done on the flows necessary to support salmon. The result will be a better understanding of whether the 1976 regulatory flows are adequate. If not, the Partnership could recommend amending the 1976 regulatory flows, or establish non-regulatory flows that would be used in the watershed planning process as planning targets.
The Departments of Fish and Wildlife and Ecology have approved the scope of work for this project. At the February 22nd meeting the Partnership referred this proposal to the Steering/Technical Committee for a recommendation on how this work might be accomplished. The STC recommend that the Partnership extend its contract with Triangle-TetraTech/KCM to include development of a detailed scope of work for monitoring flows in the Chehalis Basin. The current contract with this consulting team was designed to be broad enough to allow extending the contract for additional services. The Partnership has a good working relationship with the consulting team and taking this approach will save at least two months of time. Since the Partnership's watershed plan is due in October 2003 that leaves barely a year to measure flows so that the data can be incorporated into the planning process. It would really be good to begin measuring flows as soon as possible so that the data represents all of one summer's flows.
Some concerns were raised. Several members question the value of flow data for only one year. While it is agreed that one year's worth of flow data is not anywhere near ideal, it would be more than we currently have and could be supplemented with additional long-term flow monitoring if resources become available. Since the intent stated in the proposal to Ecology is to develop flow recommendations that would be used as planning targets and not for amending the 1976 regulatory flows the results would be consistent with the Partnership's stated preference for voluntary approaches to managing water, Additional clarification was requested about the legality of extending the contract with Triangle-TetraTech/KCM without going through a competitive process. This can be done but that the lead agency will confirm this with its attorney before taking action.
At the conclusion of the discussion consensus was reached to extend the contract with Triangle-TetraTech/KCM to include the flow monitoring and analysis work described in the proposal to Ecology.
Local Prioritization of Water Quality Grants and Loans
This discussion was inadvertently left off of the agenda sent out for this meeting but an April 25th deadline for submitting the local prioritization of grant and loans applications to the Department of Ecology makes it necessary to include it. The next meeting of the Partnership is not scheduled until April 26 .
Each year Ecology awards several million dollars in grants and loans for projects that improve water quality. The grants go through a review and ranking process at Ecology. One of the elements (worth up to 1 00 points) of Ecology's ranking process is how the projects are prioritized by a local planning group. In the Chehalis Basin this local planning group is the Partnership. For the last several years the Partnership has appointed a committee to review the projects, develop a local priority list and submit it to Ecology under the signature of the Partnership's chair by the deadline. The results are reported back to the Partnership and decision to concur with the list made at the next Partnership meeting. This process has been necessary because the deadline for submitting the locally prioritized list always seems to fall just before the Partnership's April meeting and the information necessary for preparing the local priority list isn't released in time to complete the work before the March meeting.
This year the local prioritization will be done by the newly established water quality subcommittee.
The Partnership reached consensus and directed the Water Quality Sub-Committee to develop a local priority list for state fiscal year 2003 water quality grants and loans, and authorized the Chair of the Partnership to sign the letter of agreed priority and report the results back to the full Partnership at the April meeting.
The next meeting of the Chehalis Basin Partnership will be at 9:00 a.m. on April 26th in the auditorium of the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries building located at 7273 Linderson Way SW in Tumwater Washington.
Decisions
Approved the detailed summary of the Level 1 Assessment.
Approved extending the contract with Triangle-TetraTech/KCM to include the flow monitoring and analysis work described in the proposal to Ecology.
Directed the Water Quality Sub-Committee to develop a local priority list for state fiscal year 2003 water quality grants and loans, and authorized the Chair of the Partnership to sign the letter of agreed priority and report the results back to the full Partnership at the April meeting.
Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New
Attendance: CAC members Rob Schanz, Margaret Rader, Earl Emerson, Lyle Hjoem, Terry Willis. Guests: Lee Napier
Public Involvement Plan: We finalized our comments on the March 2002 draft of the Public Involvement Plan (PIP). The following modifications were made to the plan:
Delete examples in italics under the Key Messages section, first bullet. The CAC felt these examples were too specific and may not be relevant to our basin.
Add the CAC to the list of groups that will perform key Public Involvement tasks on page 7, for Media Outreach and Project Updates.
After discussion, the CAC reached approved by consensus of the members present the modified draft Public Involvement Plan. Lee Napier will incorporate our comments into the draft and distribute a copy to all members of the Partnership. We will seek approval of the plan from the Partnership at the April 26 regular meeting.
Study Area Meetings: The Ocean Shores meeting was poorly attended, and Lee asked for suggestions on how we can improve advertising for the next meetings. They have put ads in the Daily World, local radio, and PUD mailings, and Terry has been handing out fliers. Later meetings will advertise in the Chronicle and Olympian. We felt the media outlets that Lee was using were appropriate, but that word of mouth by CAC and CBP members may be the most effective way to draw people in. Lee will mail CAC members copies of the flier for posting in their area.
After adjourning our regular meeting CAC members helped set up the Montesano study area meeting, and worked at the Listening Posts and greeting stations.
Next Meeting: The next CAC meeting will be on Friday, April 26 at 12:00 in the Labor and Industries building Cafeteria, immediately after the regular CBP meeting. We will continue discussion of how to organize study area meetings.
Rob Schanz
Chair, CBP CAC
Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New
Study Area Meetings
The committee reviewed the study area meeting held in Montesano and discussed the study area meeting scheduled for this evening at the Black Hills High school. Several groups came forward as a result of the Montesano meeting. They are interested to learn that they have an opportunity to comment and participate. Mason County has designated a different Commissioner and staff person as the county contacts for the Partnership.
At tonight's study area meeting there will be several displays presented by groups that are doing work in the Chehalis Basin. This includes DNR (Dataviewer CD), USFWS, Thurston Conservation District, Thurston County, ABLE (Black Lake). These displays are in addition to the ones prepared by Partnership member groups that have been at previous meetings.
J. Roach has been promoting this study area meeting. He has made presentations to the Thurston County Commissioners, Tumwater City Council and personally invited a number of legislators, local agencies and citizens. The Committee members thanked 'J.' for his tireless work to promote the study area meeting and the work of the Chehalis Basin Partnership.
Water Rights Data by Sub-Basin
Lee Daneker (EPA) has been working on turning the data on water rights, claims, certificates and permits contained in Ecology's "Water Right Application Tracking System" (W-RATS) into information that can be displayed by sub-basin using GIS software. Lee shared the results of his work and it resulted in a good discussion of what the WRATS database shows (the number of water rights, claims and permits on paper) and what it can not tell us (how much of that 'paper water' is still valid or how much is really being used). The committee was very pleased with Lee's work and ask him to present the information at the April 26th Partnership meeting so the Partnership can have a similar discussion.
Hydrological Modeling
Kitty Gillespie has been in touch with Thom Hardy from Utah State University and arranged a meeting on May 10th to discuss the strengths and limitations of using computer modeling as the basis for tracking water in the basin. Mr. Hardy is currently working with the planning unit in the Nooksack watershed (Whatcom County).
Committee members suggested that a briefing and discussion on computer modeling should be held prior to the meeting with Mr. Hardy so that our participation can be more meaningful. It was agreed to put this briefing/discussion on the April STC agenda.
Water Quantity Evaluation (Water Balance)
Bob Wheeler (Triangle) reviewed the three approaches under consideration for preparing a water balance that compares how much water is available naturally, how much is already appropriated, how much water is actually used and how much remains available (if any) for future appropriation. The three approaches are to develop a water balance for the whole basin, prepare a water balance for each of the four study areas, or develop a water balance for each sub-basin that has an established minimum instream flow. A basin-wide water balance would be very general due to the time and funding available. Although it would be useful for demonstrating how a water balance works, it would not provide enough detail to be useful for making specific decisions. A water balance based on sub-basins would be very detailed and would provide information needed to make decisions on specific applications to use water or develop very specific plan recommendations, but we don't have the time or resources to develop detailed water balance for each of the 31 sub-basins.
There was general agreement that the best approach would be to put some resources into a basinwide water balance because the Partnership must understand how the overall system works, but the majority of resources should be focused on a detailed water balance for the highest priority sub-basins. This led to a lengthy discussion of what should be considered in setting priorities among the 31 sub-basins. Specific work assignments were made and a deadline of April 25th was set for completing the work assignments.
Instream Flow Contract
Triangle reviewed the proposal from TetraTech/KCM for monitoring flows and Ecology reported on the status of the contract with the Partnership to fund flow monitoring. It turns out that the Partnership is eligible for more than anticipated. The flow monitoring proposal from TetraTech/KCM clearly shows that $ 1 00,000 will not allow us to gather enough quality data for the number of sites that need to be monitored in order to provide the basic information necessary to evaluate existing flows. A recommendation was made that the Partnership revise its application to Ecology and request sufficient funds to gather the data needed.
Future Meetings and Agenda's
The next regular meeting date of the Steering/Technical Committee falls on April 2, 2002. Agenda items include: an overview of hydrological computer modeling, a proposal to develop an overview of Washington State's laws and regulations that affect how water is managed, applying the sub-basin priority setting system and developing a priority list, the final budget for instream flow monitoring, and an update on the contract for services with Triangle-TetraTech/KCM.
A request was made that several additional people be added to the STC e-mail distribution list and that e-mail addresses for some current members be checked because they are not receiving the information. This will be done.
Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New
OLYMPIA - Gov. Gary Locke today announced that the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) approved $36.7 million in grants to fund salmon recovery projects across the state. Combined with local matching funds, the total value of the approved project list is more than $57.6 million. "The funding of these projects clearly illustrates that we are making significant on-the-ground progress on salmon recovery," Locke said. "Just as importantly, it shows what we can do when we work together. Thanks to the ongoing efforts of our congressional delegation, Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, and Representatives Norm Dicks, Jennifer Dunn and George Nethercutt, to secure federal funds for salmon recovery, we are ensuring that our children and grandchildren will enjoy salmon just as we have."
Bill Ruckelshaus, chair of SRFB, said, "Our process is producing increasingly better projects. My overall impression of this grant cycle is that these are better projects, better justified, and will do better things for fish. We believe that the money we are investing benefits salmon, is cost effective and has strong local and public support."
The SRFB funded 128 individual projects, including 21 projects that focus on the purchase of key salmon habitat and 59 projects that spotlight habitat improvements such as planting vegetation along streams for shade and removing fish passage barriers. Another 14 projects combine habitat acquisition and improvements. About one-quarter of the projects emphasize studies and plans to help identify priority projects for the future.
The SRFB depends on state, local and regional scientists and technical groups to help review all proposals. Local technical advisory groups define the type of science used in rating and ranking the projects, then local citizen committees review the technical groups' recommendations and develop a final list of proposed projects for SRFB funding.
Once the board receives project lists from the designated local lead entities, a panel of scientists review and rate the local process and list of projects for benefit to salmon and certainty of project success. Through this level of scrutiny, the board seeks to fund projects that are both scientifically sound and locally supported.
"The level of scrutiny used in evaluating, ranking and rating these projects is amazing," said Steve Tharinger, SRFB citizen member. "I have been involved with the local side of the process for several years but the board adds an additional level of review," Tharinger added. "It is clear that everyone involved in salmon recovery is continuing to make the process better and that the people in the watersheds are key to the ultimate success in salmon recovery."
Jay Watson, chair of the Lead Entity Advisory Group, said, "This funding round has been a long and arduous process, but the result is that great things will happen in the form of protection and restoration projects for salmon habitat throughout the state of Washington. This work is the result of the efforts of many grassroots groups as well as the Salmon Recovery Funding Board and its Technical Advisory Panel."
The SRFB received 216 applications requesting a total of $57 million. A summary and detailed listing of projects are available on the SRFB web site at www.wa.gov/iac/SRFBwhatsnew.html
Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New
| - | DOE Phase III | DOE Phase II | USFWS #38020209 | TOTAL |
| Budget Item | - | - | - | - |
| BUDGET | $450,000.00 | $353,162.00 | $55,000.00 | $858,162.00 |
| Advertising | - | $4,950.25 | - | $4,950.25 |
| Biologist | - | - | $9,688.72 | $9,688.72 |
| GIS Coordinator | - | - | $2,502.08 | $2,502.08 |
| Professional Services | $46,504.79 | $122,731.94 | - | $169,236.73 |
| Project Coordinator | $10,377.48 | $19,933.85 | $6,280.79 | $36,592.12 |
| Room Rental | $965.60 | $4,930.56 | - | $5,896.16 |
| Supplies | $12.71 | $475.59 | $12.88 | $501.18 |
| TOTAL SPENT TO DATE | $57,860.58 | $153,022.19 | $18,484.47 | $229,367.24 |
| BUDGET BALANCES | $392,139.42 | $200,139.81 | $36,515.53 | $628,794.76 |
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council