Chehalis Basin Partnership
 |
Meeting Summary – January 27, 2006
A. GENERAL PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS
Introductions
Chair Bonnie Canaday welcomed everyone and opened the meeting. Terry Harris was introduced as the new representative to the CBP for the City of Chehalis. Thirteen of the Partnership's twenty-eight member organizations had a representative or an alternate at the meeting. Fifteen additional citizens, alternates, or visitors were at the meeting. (See attendance list on the last page of this summary).
Monthly River Flow Report
Jennings reviewed the flow charts he created for this month’s report. The graphs describe real time data from the USGS gage sites at the Newaukum, Skookumchuck at Bucoda, Chehalis at Grand Mound, Chehalis at Porter, Satsop, Wynoochee and Humptulips Rivers. The graphs show the regulatory flow, the actual flow, and the median flows for the 15th day of the month and measure the flow in cubic feet.
Jennings commented that all the flows are above the regulatory flows. The graphs for the Humptulips actual and median flows are rather close because the data for this point only includes collection since reestablishing the gage two years ago.
He asked the group for feedback regarding the format. As the year progresses, should he change the format to show 6-month increments? The STC will made a recommendation for this question.
Chehalis Basin Watershed Festival
Chanele Holbrook reported that she continues to contact festival vendors and participants and continues to ask for suggestions. The feedback for a site appears to favor Riverside Park. The group needs to set a date next month.
B. Special Projects
Watershed Planning-Phase IV
Napier introduced John Kliem. John presented the approach recommended by the STC to the group. A copy of the presentation is attached.
Questions from the group:
· Kahle asked for clarification regarding the sponsors and participants lists in Step 2. The sponsors would be the obligated party and the participants would include the entities that provide secondary support to implement the work plan. Napier gave an example. Lewis Conservation District is interested in sponsoring a water quality monitoring coordinator position. They received support from the CBP during the grant development process to the Department of Ecology. Lewis CD is the sponsor. The participants in this case, would be entities who collect water quality data such as Heernett, Chehalis River Council, conservation districts, and the Chehalis Basin Educational Consortium.
· Napier added that the approach described in Step 2 was similar to the approach the Water Quality Committee developed for their work in October.
· Jones asked if this approach will fit the timeline for securing commitments from Board of County Commissioners, and other potential responsible organizations, as described in the timeline. Swartout and Napier responded that it should work. As the work plans evolve, the entities need to communicate the potential obligations as the details become available. If people commit to this approach then the timelines will work.
· Swartout added that the STC members felt a sense of relief after hearing Kliem’s presentation to the STC. Their concerns regarding how to meet the one-year timeline now seemed attainable.
Watershed Council Action Grant
Napier reported that she received three proposals in response to the Request for Proposals. She briefing reviewed the proposals with the group. The group asked her to work with the STC to determine which proposals met the needs of the group and the grant budget.
GIS Summit
Steve Craig reported on this item. He distributed a copy of the meeting notes (attached) to review with the group.
He described how this project would complement the work initiated by the Association of Cities and Counties in Lewis County and the Corps Ecosystem Restoration project.
Ron Mauel shared concerns about including information of a sensitive nature such as specific data related to a particular farm. There are some data sets that the Farm Bureau would not support wide dissemination of that information. He would like to see the group decide what type of data would be posted. The group supported Ron’s concern about protocol.
Salmon Recovery
Napier asked the group to consider supporting the projects proposed as high priority work through the Family Forestry Fish Passage Program (FFFPP), a partnership between DNR, IAC, and WDFW. Napier went on to say that during the last application period, which ended June 30th, the program staff added 134 eligible sites to the project pool. Out of this number, 8 are considered high priority projects from the Chehalis Basin. The goal of this program is to establish a ranked inventory of fish passage barriers on land owned by small forest land owners. The work is based on the principle of fixing the worst problems first within a watershed. One of the primary factors for ranking a project as high is the amount of anadromous fish habitat opened by the project.
Brett Demond, WDFW, reported to the Habitat Work Group the previous week that statewide 25% of the proposals came from landowners in the Chehalis Basin. Statewide 36% of the funds are awarded to Chehalis landowners.
The group agreed to support the prioritization of high priority work by WDFW and supporting agency staff for the FFFPP.
Napier reported that the SRFB funded 3 out of 12 projects. The projects include controlling sediment from the Wishkah Road, another fish passage barrier assessment by Lewis CD, and replacing a fish barrier in Dry Bed Creek. The three grants total $611,000 in SRFB grant dollars.
Regarding the evaluation of the strategy by the SRFB, Napier was not pleased with the second increment of funding which was based on the fit of the project list to the strategy. While she believes the list fit the strategy, the SRFB criteria compromised funding in the Chehalis. The SRFB criterion required lead entities to only submit their highest priority projects. In the Chehalis, the list includes high, high-medium, and medium priority projects. If the SRFB maintains this approach, the Chehalis will need to reconsider which project’s are included on the SRFB list.
Napier also reported that the habitat strategy is still undergoing an update. The Habitat Work Group will meet the second Friday of each month at the Lewis Conservation District Office. She encouraged anyone who is interested in projects to become involved in the update. The group will updated the subbasin profiles. The final document will be presented to the CBP.
C. Open Comment
None
The next meeting of the Chehalis Basin Partnership will be held on February 24, 2006 from 9:30 AM to 12:00 m at the Lucky Eagle Casino near Oakville.
Decisions
§ The CBP accepted the list of prioritized projects for the FFFPP.
|
Chehalis Basin Partnership Attendance Record |
|
|
Lee Napier |
Grays Harbor County |
|
Bob Macleod |
Thurston County |
|
Mark Swartout |
Thurston County |
|
Kernen Lien |
Lewis County |
|
Bob Fink |
Mason County |
|
Glen Connelly |
Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis |
|
Art Lehman |
Port of Centralia |
|
Bonnie Canaday |
City of Centralia |
|
Kahle Jennings |
City of Centralia |
|
Terry Harris |
City of Chehalis |
|
Patrick Wiltzius |
City of Chehalis |
|
Ron Schillinger |
City of Montesano |
|
Jean Gayle |
Grays Harbor County Water District #2 |
|
Lyle Hojem |
Lewis County CAC member |
|
Chanele Holbrook Shaw |
Thurston County CAC member |
|
Chad Stussy |
Department of Fish and Wildlife |
|
Ann Wick |
Department of Agriculture |
|
Steve Craig |
Department of Ecology |
|
Ellie McMillan |
Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force |
|
Bruce Jones |
Quinault Indian Nation |
|
Taylor Pittman |
USFWS |
|
Lonnie Crumley |
LWD Consulting |
|
Mike McGinnis |
Skillings Connolly, Inc. & TCWCB |
|
John Mudge |
Lewis County Citizen |
|
John Penberth |
Lewis County Citizen |
|
Neal King |
Kingbuilt Homes |
|
Vicki Cummings |
GH COG |
|
Jennifer Kelly |
Congressman Brains Baird |
|
John Kliem |
Creative Community Solutions |