Chehalis Basin Partnership

Meeting Summary – March 24, 2006

A. GENERAL PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS

Introductions

Chair Bonnie Canaday welcomed everyone and opened the meeting.  She asked everyone to introduce himself or herself.   Eleven of the Partnership's twenty-eight member organizations had a representative or an alternate at the meeting.  Eight additional citizens, alternates, or visitors were at the meeting. (See attendance list on the last page of this summary). 

Napier asked the group to consider which day they would meet in May.  The regular meeting date precedes the Memorial Day weekend.  Would they prefer to meet a week earlier?  A majority of the members expressed a preference to meet a week earlier.  Napier also shared that she needed to determine the date because students from the Chehalis Basin Education Consortium (CBEC) would like to present to the group.  The group asked Napier to check with the CBEC regarding their availability and then set the date based on their schedule.  She will report back next month. Note-Lucky Eagle is not available that day.

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 15^th day of the month and measure the flow in cubic feet. 

He asked the group for feedback regarding the new format developed with Jim Hill’s assistance.  He handed out copies and projected the file onto the wall for the group to review and discuss.  The new format include a page for each station that shows the data collected for the year; a graphs depicting the regulatory flow, medium flow, and actual flows for 2005 and 2006; and a chart for the daily flows.  Based on his presentation the group asked the following:

• Can you notice a change in water quality based on increase flows?  Jennings that it really depends on the parameter you are measuring how increase flows will alter the conditions.  The Fecal Coliform TMDL for Grays Harbor describes the effects of rainfall on loading.  He went on to share that based on his experience, during the September and October period, increased rain and runoff can lead to increase levels of pollutants in the water.  Temperature and dissolved oxygen conditions usually improve with increased flows. 
• Schillinger thanked Kahle for his work to report the flows each month.  Kahle added that Jim Hill has also helped with the monthly charting.  

Chehalis Basin Watershed Festival

Jennings reported that September 23^rd seemed liked the best date to set for the festival.  FIN, the salmon, would be available and the City is hosting an art walk that same time.  The 23^rd does conflict with the Puyallup Fair, but the weather might be better in September than October.  Plus there are other local conflicting events on the 7^th.  The group set September 23^rd as the date. 

The group brainstormed briefly ideas for the festival:

• Fish tank with trout
• Logo contest
• Invite FINN
• Outreach to schools
• Solicit sponsors in name and financial
• Ask the Governor, counties and cities, to proclaim Chehalis Days
• Salmon bake by the tribes

Currently the planning committee includes: Chanele, Kahle, Jim Hill and Steve.  Everyone is encouraged to share ideas.

B. Special Projects

GIS Clearinghouse

Steve Craig reported that Grays Harbor College is working on a job description for the GIS instructor/coordinator for the Chehalis Basin.  The College did release a letter committing to fund the second year.  The first year would be funded through a grant from Ecology.  The third year would require funding and support from the Partnership and the College. 

Watershed Planning-Phase IV

Napier reviewed for the group the workshop schedule, prioritization, structure, and intent.

The STC, WQC and HWG scheduled workshops for five of the 18 objectives.  The proposed workshop schedule at this time is as follows:

• For Objective 1, The Partnership recommends that the state make it clear to water rights applicants that there are flexible strategies for meeting their water rights needs given the hydraulic continuity is an issue.  (Reference: WMP Table 1, Action 1, page 19).  The oversight committee will try to meet in April and the STC will host a workshop in June at the STC meeting on the 1^st . Mark Swartout will be the team lead. 
• Objective 3 Recommend adequate funding level for water resources management (source to be determined; funding to be distributed to those entities involved in water resources management). (Reference: WMP Table 2, Action 7, page 20).  The STC scheduled April 6^th for this workshop.  Steve Craig will be the team lead. 
• Objective 11 Identify tools available to meet the Water Quantity goal.  (WMP pg. 4) will be schedule for the May 18^th meeting at Montesano City Hall.  Glen Connelly will be the team lead.   
• Objective 13 Develop approaches to keep forestry and agriculture on the land.  (Reference: Table 5, WMP Action 36, page 24).  Terry Willis will be the lead and the WQC will host a workshop on May 11^th Montesano City Hall. 

Napier and John Kliem are working to keep the Phase IV portion of the website current with dates, notes, workbooks, and other good information.

Napier explained the prioritization process.  Using the decision rule model, the STC selected 5 out of the 18 objectives. The prioritization was a means to manage the workload since we wanted to dedicate time for a workshop on each objective.  It may not necessarily reflect the objectives that are most important.  It may be more a reflection of work that seemed achievable during this contractual period, which ends September 30^th. 

Napier went on to explain that initially the STC, and maybe even the CBP expected they would pick one of the six weighting scenarios.  Bob Fink suggested the STC look at the trends for all six scenarios and developed rules based on the trend.  This resulted in a three-tiered division of the 18 objectives. 

The rules included

• Tier One= 4 out of 6 times in the top 6. 
• Tier 2=1-3 times in the top 6.
• Tier 3= 0 times in the top 6.

Napier described participant roles and responsibilities.  The STC, WQ, and HWG Committees will have oversight responsibility for each WMP Objective that falls under their purview.  Assisting each committee will be a WMP Objective Committee who will oversee the work of Working Participants.

The STC, WQ, and HWG Committees will monitor the work of each WMP Objective Committee to ensure it stays on track with the Watershed Management Plan approved by the CBP.  An STC, WQ or HWG Committee member will serve on each WMP Objective Committee.  That member will have the responsibility of keeping the committee as a whole informed regarding the outcomes and progress of the WMP Objective Committee.

The WMP Objective Committee will coordinate the work and progress of working partners.  This committee will layout the tasks needed for completing a WMP Objective, recruiting and coordinating the work of the working participants, including helping to acquire resources to complete tasks.

Working Participants will be responsible for completing defined tasks within a set timeframe.

For the workshops, Napier will send out invitations to potential participants on an Oversight Committee and Implementation Participant for our Watershed Management Plan Objectives #1, #3, #11, #13, and # 18.  She will also include copies of the Issue Papers related to the Objective and a copy of the workbook.

The invite letters will describe how our planning efforts in the Chehalis Basin are now entering the Detailed Implementation Planning phase.  The purpose of this phase is to develop work plans for projects that will lead to the overall implementation of our Watershed Management Plan.  The work plans will include Interim Milestones for implementing the Objective, a list of agencies or organizations committed to completing the Interim Milestones, and an inventory of the resources needed to complete the Interim Milestones.  Once the work plan is complete, we then begin our efforts at implementing the Objective.

The letter to the Oversight Committee would explain that the responsibility of the Oversight Committee in both the work plan development and implementation phases involves providing advice and coordination in the implementation of the Objective to ensure its consistency with the Chehalis Basin Watershed Management Plan.  The Oversight Committee will work in conjunction with our Standing Committees to develop recommendations regarding the Objective that will go before the Chehalis Basin Partnership for approval.  Their time commitments entail participating at one planning meeting and then periodic meetings throughout the year during the implementation phase.

For the potential Implementation Participants, the letter explains that we recognize that participants need to discuss their potential participation in this project with their respective agency or organization before making any commitments.  That is why we are asking they simply attend and give us input at this workshop.  Once they have the opportunity to discuss a potential commitment within the agency and organization, they can let us know the status and conditions for participation.

The agenda for the workshops entails presenting an overview of the Objective; requesting review and comment on the content and order the Interim Milestones for implementing the WMP Objective; seeking potential commitments from participants to completing Interim Milestones; and identifying the resources needed for completing the Interim Milestones.

Napier reported that on February 15^th, she traveled to Boise Idaho, to participate in a webcast with the Environmental Finance Center Staff.  According to the publicity for this presentation “this Webcast will help you get on the right fundraising track. Presenters will highlight several tools developed by the Environmental Finance Center to support watershed organizations in their long-term fundraising efforts. In addition, a real world example from the Pacific Northwest will show how the tools have been applied.”  Participants from all over the US dialed in to listen to the webcast.  She also spent time reviewing the new version of Plan 2 Fund with the staff.

On March 21^st, Lee attended Department of Ecology’s statewide watershed peer group workshop.  She was asked to be part of a panel discussion.  While in Tacoma, Lee found out that a budget provisio had been added to Ecology’s budget for $75,000 in enhanced funding for the Chehalis Basin.  The group asked the STC to discuss and develop a proposal and possible use of the money.

Salmon Recovery

Napier presented the list of projects for consideration through the Chehalis Fisheries Restoration Program.  She asked the group to consider accepting this list as their priorities for this year’s budget.  The group accepted the list.

Napier was appointed to serve on the ITF for the SRFB.  The ITF consideration for this time period, included suggestions related to SRFB Review Panel role, whether to review LE strategies, and how to allocate the $16 million for the next round.  The allocation consumed most of the discussions.  We talked about how to allocate among the regions and how to address area not included in a regional recovery plan.  The ITF review a variety of factors to consider as potential criteria for distribution of the funds to regional area.  They settled on # of WRIAs, Salmonid miles, SaSI Stocks, and listed populations.  They also spent time weighting each criterion.  At the end of the discussions, the ITF recommended a transitional adjustment(s,) which lowered the percent of the allocation for the coast to a historical number of 9%.  The recommendation to the SRFB would also include support to help facilitate the regional discussions for the coast and capacity building, which was not very clearly described. 

The regional allocation would be a target dollar amount that LE could expect to receive in their region if they worked together to produce strategic lists. 

Due to the quick turn around time for this round and the reduced level of funding, Napier suggested to the CBP that they consider resubmitting the high priority projects on our 2005 list.  The group referred this suggestion to the Habitat Work Group.

C. Open Comment

None

The next meeting of the Chehalis Basin Partnership will be held on April 28, 2006 from 9:30 AM to 12:00 m at the Lucky Eagle Casino near Oakville.

Decisions

§ The group accepted the list of prioritized projects for the USFWS Chehalis Fisheries Restoration Program.

Chehalis Basin Partnership Attendance Record
Lee Napier	Grays Harbor County
Mark Swartout	Thurston County
Bob Fink	Mason County
Art Lehman	Port of Centralia
Ed McCullough	Port of Grays Harbor
Bonnie Canaday	City of Centralia
Kahle Jennings	City of Centralia
Ron Schillinger	City of Montesano
Leslie Metcalf	City of Napavine
Jim Hill	Lewis County CAC member
Ann Wick	Department of Agriculture
Steve Craig	Department of Ecology
Ellie McMillan	Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force
Bruce Jones	Quinault Indian Nation
Jim Haslett	Napavine Citizen
Janis Aaron Moore	McCleary Citizen
Jerry Louthain	HDR
Tracy Farrell	HDR