Joint Meeting of the Water Quality and Steering Technical Committees

February 9, 2006

Grays Harbor County Forestry Building

 

 

Terry Willis, John Kliem, Chad Stussy, Glenn Connelly, Harry Pickernell, Steve Craig, Bob Fink, Dave Rountry, Lonnie Crumley, Patrick Wiltzius, Bob Amrine, Chanele Holbrook Shaw, Samuel Iwnenofu, Bruce Jones, Mark Swartout, Kahle Jennings, and Lee Napier were present.

 

Terry Willis asked everyone to introduce themselves. 

 

Phase IV-Detailed Implementation Plan

 

Website

John Kliem reviewed the Implementation Plan website with the group.  The website was designed to serve as the repository for all the work plans, meeting dates, notes and contact.  He has used this type of site for other projects.

 

 

Comments from the Group-

  • The group liked the format and appreciated the simplicity of the design. 
  • Will the website include updates and progress reports?  One option for progress reports might be to use Plan2Fund and post that on the website.  The group needs to determine how the work plans will be updated and who will update the site. 
  • The group asked John to clarify the location of the Watershed Management Plan in the introduction to the website.
  • When can we post possible objective sponsors for the work plans on the website?  We could put a caveat that states these are the people we intend to contact regarding potential sponsorship.  Change responsibility and participants to potential and a disclaimer at the top of each objective.

 

Workbooks

The group spent time reviewing the work plans and adding names as potential oversight and participants.  See the work plans, versions 2.06A, for final draft product.

 

The group discussed and suggested the following additions and/or changes to the work plans.

  • The QIN intends to monitor, for all parameters, at sites in the Chehalis Basin (Scatter Creek). 
  • Has the group explored resource recovery assistance from nonprofit groups such as Audubon Society, Ducks Unlimited, and Chehalis River Council, Trout Unlimited.    Bob Fink has the link for a site that includes recognized nonprofit groups.
  • Grays Harbor Oyster Growers are collecting data related to spartina.
  • EPA received a water quality monitoring increase in their budget-Samuel. 
  • EPA grant recipients must submit data to the STORNET site.
  • What kind of data is Department of Agriculture collecting through sampling in the Chehalis?
  • How will we incorporate public outreach into the development of the work plans?  The group suggested adding a statement to the website and including a disclaimer on the work plan.
  • Each county has small forest landowner organization.  Lee will check with Bill Stewart for the contact information.     
  • Farming for the Environment out of Seattle works with farmers to help them market their products.  Bob Amrine has the contact information. 
  • Determine the contact for the Chehalis Farmers Market Nonprofit.  Who is the Boistfort Coop?
  • For oversight responsibility the group explored several options;

·   An individual or group should have an interest in seeing this objective implemented.

·  The group discussed who would be interested in seeing the Chehalis Basin WMP implemented.  In most cases, the CBP may be the only entity interested in implementation.  With this scenario, participants would report progress to the CBP. 

·  The group also discussed recruiting CBP members to agree to the oversight responsibility for facilitation. 

·  Maybe the CBP could ask a group of people to be the oversight committee.  As part of the group’s work, one organization would elect to be the lead agency who would report progress back to the CBP. 

·  How does the CBP insure that oversight responsibility produces a product acceptable to the CBP?  Oversight responsibility would be under the auspice that they are implementing the CBP’s plan.    

·  The group also talked about the oversight entity reporting to the CBP standing committees. 

·  John will prepare a coordination piece based on the comments of the group.

  • The group skipped Objective 14 until the Weed Coalition could review the tasks. 
  • Objective 15 is very similar to Objective 12, task 9.  The group discussed changing Objective 15 tasks to become a subtask of Objective 12, task 9 or remove task 9.  The group agreed to remove task 9 from Objective 12.  John will insert the names from task 9 into Objective 15. 
  • Bob Fink suggested that the group examine existing programs already addressed by an organization against new programs proposed by the WMP.  The priority of the group might be better spent on new programs and then lend support to existing programs.  He suggested this approach as a way to reduce the group’s work. 
  • Lonnie suggested identifying the organizations that are required by law to implement some of our objectives and tasks.  Are we overlapping someone else’s responsibility?  The RCW clearly states that we are to consult with other planning entities to ensure there is no duplication or inconsistent policies (RCW 90.82.043)
  • Swartout suggested that through the facilitated workshop, we might identify what the entities are already doing.    
  • Connelly sees similarity between this effort and a basin wide gap analysis to identify program limitations and/or the need to establish new programs. 
  • Delete Objective 2, Task 2, because it’s already stated in Objective 17.

 

The STC will meet on the 16th to finish the work plans. 

 

The next regular meeting is March 2 for the STC and March 9 for the WQC.