Chehalis Basin Partnership

 

 

 


Meeting Summary – April 28, 2006

 

A.     GENERAL PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS

 

Introductions

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

 

Napier announced that the May meeting would be on the 26th.  The Lucky Eagle is not available the prior week, which means the meeting date will be on the regularly schedule day, fourth Friday of the month.  In May, a group of students from the Chehalis Basin Education Consortium will present their work related to water quality monitoring.

 

Adjustment to the Agenda

Charles Pitz, Department of Ecology addressed the group.  Charles helped produce the pilot project described in the Hydrology and Quality of Groundwater in the Centralia Chehalis Area Surficial Aquifer, Ecology Publication No. 05-03-040 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0503040.html .  This report presents the results of a 2003-05 hydrogeologic assessment undertaken by Department of Ecology to pilot test a standardized technical approach for a new state groundwater assessment program.  Charles asked the group if they would need additional/future technical assistance from his program.  The group responded yes, they would like assistance to help implement watershed management plan objectives and actions.  For example, page 19 of the Plan describes the need to conduct a groundwater study to address hydraulic continuity.  The group would like Charles to help develop a scope of work for this action. 

 

Charles asked if the group saw a need to conduct another pilot study.  The group would need to identify a priority area of approximately 50-100 square miles.  They would also need to indicate if there is interest in gathering data beyond ground and surface water interaction. 

 

Work requested beyond helping to develop a scope of work for the watershed plan action, would need to be formalized through a proposed work plan and submitted to his division.  The work plan should include community willingness to allow him access to data collection sites.  John Penberth suggested upriver of Porter as a priority site.  He suggested this site due to low flow readings from the gages. 

 

Monthly River Flow Report

Napier reported for Jennings.  She 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 River near Chehalis, Skookumchuck near Bucoda, Chehalis River near Grand Mound, Chehalis at Porter, Satsop River near Satsop, Wynoochee River above Save Creek near Aberdeen, and Humptulips River below Highway 10 near Humptulips. The graphs show the regulatory flow, the actual flow, and the median flows for the 15th day of the month, measured the flow in cubic feet and described discharge.

 

She noted that for this month, the actual flows were all above the medium and regulatory flows except for two gages.   The Chehalis River Near Grand Mound appeared to be even with the median flow and above the regulatory flow.  The Chehalis River at Porter was below the median flow, but above regulatory. 

 

Chehalis Basin Watershed Festival

Chanele Holbrook-Shaw and Napier presented a Power Point presentation prepared by Jim Hill.  Jim and Kahle took a walk in the park earlier in the month to capture some of the positive attributes of the site. 

 

Napier went on to say that the STC meeting discussed using a portion of the $75,000 appropriated by the legislators to hire a festival coordinator.  The group hoped that by hiring a coordinator the festival planning would run a little smoother for the volunteers.  STC members contacted several experienced event coordinators.  Napier was able to locate an individual with an open date for the September 23rd date.  A committee will meet on May 4th, with the potential coordinator, to further discuss and develop a scope of work.  Anyone who is interested should plan on attending.  The group agreed that hiring a facilitator would help the festival succeed. 

 

B.     Special Projects

 

SWIM Presentation

Joy Paulus IAC, presented the Salmon and Watershed Information Management (SWIM) program to the group.  This program works with 12 state agencies and attempts to link science and non-technical information managers to a common communication site.  Joy provides GIS data coordination of natural resource information related to salmon recovery and watershed management.  While her organization does not maintain the data, she does provide a link to the source.  A copy of Joy’s presentation is attached. 

 

Watershed Planning-Phase IV

Napier reviewed for the group the schedule for the workshops, which will be held on May 11th, May 18th, June 1st and June 9th.  She reviewed the outcome of the first workshop on April 6th and distributed copies of the workshop results to the group.  During this workshop, the group while examining the interim milestones reorganized and created four heading.  Because this objective, WMP Action 7 Recommend adequate funding for water resources management, is rather broad in scope, the group felt this regrouping might set the stage to create overarching themes for the other work plan objective to reference or supplement. 

 

The next workshops will cover:

  • WMP Action 36-Develop approaches to keep forestry and agriculture on the land; and
  • WMP Action 11-Identify tools available to meet the Water Quantity Goal. 

 

Napier asked the group to consider amending the budget for professional services by $15,000.  Currently the work is within the budget, but based on the committee meeting discussion and workshops, she predicts the need for facilitation to be greater than expected.  She is also submitting an amendment to Ecology to cover travel cost and would like to submit an increase in professional services at the same time.  The group agreed to increase the budget for professional services.  Napier will consult the group before increasing any professional service contract amounts.

            

Budget Request by Ecology

Napier distributed copies of guidance documents prepared at the request of the STC.  The projects described in the proposal included:  Coordinated Water Quality Monitoring, GIS Clearinghouse, development of a Strategy for Watershed-wide Water Conservation, and a Phase 2 Water Storage assessment.  During the April STC meeting, the group discussed potential project and arrived at a list of six.  They asked Napier to develop the proposals using existing documents.  Time constraints allowed her to develop only the top four, as ranked by the STC. 

 

Napier explained Ecology’s process.  For 2007-2009 budget planning purposes, Ecology assumes maintaining its current level of funding for watershed support: approximately $11 million in operating funds and $12 million in capital funds.  (Operating budget funds may be used for administrative and service functions; capital budget funds may be used for acquisition or construction of infrastructure-type projects).  Depending on the size and scope of watershed needs identified through this process, Ecology may request an increase in legislative appropriation. 

 

Using the Project Budget Request form, they asked for a brief (no more than 2 pages) description of each proposal you wish Ecology to consider, and indicate whether it’s an operating or capital budget request. The information provided here will help Ecology size and justify their budget request and determine whether to pursue additional funding to help support implementation of local watershed plans.  Once that determination has been made, Ecology will send out a separate request to gather additional detail on project proposals for the 07-09 biennium. 

 

Ecology will use the following criteria and process in reviewing and assessing project proposals for possible inclusion in its 07-09 budget request: 

 

 Priority will be given to proposals that:

  • Support 2514 Watershed Plan Implementation
  • Support improved water management:
    • Enhance, increase reliability of water supply
    • Protect, enhance stream flows
    • Achieve water conservation, water use efficiency improvements
    • Advance integration of water quantity, water quality, salmon recovery efforts
    • Link watershed plan implementation to Columbia River/Puget Sound initiatives

 

Preference will be given to proposals that:

  • Have broad local support
  • Are supported by other funds or partnerships (e.g. local, federal)
  • Address multiple water resource management objectives
  • Offer innovative water solutions
  • Demonstrate measurable or near-term results

 

The group recommended submitting the four proposals presented by Napier. 


SEPA Review-Birchfield Planned Master Community

Napier asked the group to discuss her response to a SEPA determination from Lewis County for the Draft EIS for the Birchfield Master Planned Community.  She distributed a letter dated April 10, 2006 to Lewis County.   The letter was sent to Lewis County before they sent out a letter extending the comment date to April 25th, which still did not allow time for her to run comments by the CBP.  She was interested in hearing the group’s feedback regarding the April 10th comments and asked for direction regarding review of future checklists. 

 

Napier briefly reviewed the proposals and asked for group comments.  The group supported her letter and asked for an informational presentation by the project proponents and/or Lewis County.  The group asked Napier to continue to advise them of future SEPA review(s). 

 

Salmon Recovery

 

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 last month. The HWG supported this approach. 

 

C.     Open Comment

 

None

 

The next meeting of the Chehalis Basin Partnership will be held on May 26, 2006 from 9:30 AM to 12:00 m at the Lucky Eagle Casino near Oakville.

 

Decisions

 

§         The group supported increasing the professional services budget by $15,000.

§         The group agreed to submit four proposals as guidance documents to Ecology budget process.

 

Chehalis Basin Partnership Attendance Record

Commissioner Bob Beerbower

Grays Harbor County

Lee Napier

Grays Harbor County

Commissioner Richard Graham

Lewis County

Kernen Lien

Lewis County

Mark Swartout

Thurston County

Bob Fink

Mason County

Glen Connelly

Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis

Charles Caldwell

Port of Grays Harbor

Terry Harris

City of Chehalis

Patrick Wiltzius

City of Chehalis

Ron Schillinger

City of Montesano

Terry Willis

Grays Harbor County CAC member

Lyle Hojem

Lewis County CAC member

Chanele Holbrook-Shaw

Thurston County CAC member

Ann Wick

Department of Agriculture

Steve Craig

Department of Ecology

Chad Stussy

Department of Fish and Wildlife

Ron Mauel

Lewis County Farm Bureau

Ellie McMillan

Chehalis Basin Fisheries Task Force

Bruce Jones

Quinault Indian Nation

Nancy Allison

Columbia Pacific RC &  D

John Mudge

Lewis County Citizen

Lew Pumphrey

Vidette

Joy Paulus

IAC

John Penberth

Lewis County Citizen

Neal King

Kingbuilt Homes