Copies of the Chehalis Best Management Practices Evaluation Project were handed out. This report is a summary of water quality monitoring conducted by Ecology to document the water quality results obtained for selected BMP implementation sites in the Chehalis Basin.

Due to workload, STC meetings have tentatively been scheduled for July 12th, 19th and 26th. Because of the number of people attending STC meetings who drive from Olympia or Seattle many members thought it might be more efficient to meet in Olympia. Terra Hegy and Kitty Gillespie will identify available locations in Olympia and let others know if space is available. (The July 12 meeting will be at the Department of Ecology in Lacey in room R2S-20.)

The STC discussed the four study-area meetings and noted the types of feedback received. A couple of noteworthy results of the meetings are:

úPeople from many areas of the basin have concerns about flooding. They want to know what is being done for them.

Placements of some levees planned under the Centralia/Chehalis Flood Damage Reduction project could change based on comments heard at the workshops.

People provided historical information about what has happened in their area of the basin.

Other discussion topics during this STC meeting included:

Mason County elected officials have not been attending the CBP meetings for quite a while. Mason County has recently named new contacts for the Partnership. Robert Fink is currently designated as the Mason County staff contact for watershed planning in the Chehalis Basin.

How the public perceives the watershed plan and how the Partnership should present the draft plan and get feedback. Many people felt that the key to future public interest is how the plan will impact them as individuals.

The JARPA integrated permit application designed to streamline the number of permit

applications needed for a single project. Apparently not all agencies use JARPA.

The Chehalis Basin Partnership should seek direct feedback from interest groups as the plan is developed and not rely solely on the monthly meetings. Tribes, cities and water districts are among the first that should be contacted to ensure the plan identifies and addresses their interests.

It was suggested that the Partnership explore talking directly with the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation and the Quinault Indian Nation about their individual interests related to in-stream flow and water quality.

The potential locations of stream gauges for this seasons flow monitoring, the merits of data

loggers and the quality of each potential site. The characteristics of each in-stream flow control

point have been assessed to determine what will be involved with monitoring flows at that point. The assessment included site access, property ownership, flow conditions, wading measurements, year-round data, site visibility and security, and made recommendations about each monitoring site. It appears historical flow data that can be used might be available for the Hoquiam area. This usefulness of this data will be explored further.

Phase 2 Assessment funding will be coordinated with the funding for in-stream flow monitoring.

A basin wide water balance will be developed. Three sub-basins will be evaluated in greater detail. The Grays Harbor estuary area will be treated as a separate sub-basin and information will be developed to provide the equivalent amount of information for the harbor as that contained in the Level I Assessment for the rest of the basin.

There was a discussion of whether a new legal entity could be an advantage when it comes time to implement the final plan. A regional legal entity could apply for SRF Board funding and take other steps that might advance watershed planning and implementation. The Chehalis Basin Partnership in its current form can not do some of those things directly.

There was a discussion of the language in the Watershed Planning Act (RCW 90.82) related to approval of the final plan. The question is whether those who are identified in statute as eligible to participate in the local planning unit are required to approve the final plan even though they may have elected not to participate. The concern is that some could wait until the plan is complete to voice their concern or opposition. The STC would like to avoid this. Kahle Jennings will provide documentation of Ecology's position on the applicable section(s) of Watershed Planning Act (RCW 90.82).

A working draft of the final plan should be created as soon as possible so that as we work on the plan we can see how various parts are integrated and are not surprised as we get close to the final product. Triangle walked the STC through the schedule for completing the plan, noting the major milestones and meeting dates where decisions have to be made.

The STC decided to recommend to the Partnership that Grays Harbor County, acting as lead agency, not go through another consultant recruitment process for the remainder of our work on the watershed plan. The STC will recommend rehiring Triangle/KCM. It was agreed that Triangle/KCM has done a good job and there is no need to consider changing consultants.

A draft issue tracking form was distributed. A form like this could be used to keep track of issues people have brought up during the planning process and how they might be addressed in the final watershed plan. Each element would have analysis, recommendations, implementation and steps, schedules, costs and assignments. The form can show what the group plans to do with recommendations and how it intends to prioritize them.

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