Rochester, Washington
January 26, 2007
9:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Draft Minutes
MEMBERS & ALTERNATES PRESENTBonnie Canaday, Chair, Mayor Pro-Tem, City of Centralia Terry Willis, Citizen, Grays Harbor Terry Harris, City of Chehalis Steve Craig, Department of Ecology Lyle Hojem, Citizen, Lewis County Art Lehman, Port of Centralia Dick Stone, Mayor, City of Montesano (Alternate)
|
Richard Graham, Commissioner, Lewis County Steve Kalinowski, Department of Fish & Wildlife Mark Swartout, Thurston County (Alternate) Robert Fink, Mason County (Alternate) Patrick Wiltzius, City of Chehalis (Alternate) Mark White, Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis (Alternate) Lee Napier, Grays Harbor County (Alternate) Kahle Jennings, City of Centralia (Alternate)
|
OTHERS PRESENTRandy Lehr, Grays Harbor College Bruce Jones, Quinault Indian Nation Kathy Jacobson, Chehalis Basin Ed Consortium Glen Connelly, Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Dave Rountry, Department of Ecology Jerry Louthain, HDR
|
Jon Hare, Thurston WCB John Kliem, Creative Community Solutions Jim Hill, Citizen, Lewis County John Mudge, Citizen Jessica Tate, Recording Secretary, Puget Sound Meeting Services
|
GENERAL PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS
Chair Canaday called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m.
Discuss and Adopt Draft Meeting Summaries for October 27, 2006 and November 17, 2006 Meetings
The Partnership expressed satisfaction with the format and content of the minutes prepared by Puget Sound Meeting Services.
The Partnership agreed to adopt the minutes of October 27, 2006 and November 17, 2006 as written.
Ms. Napier clarified that Bonnie Canaday is currently nominated as Chair.
Ms. Napier nominated Mark White for Vice Chair. Mr. White accepted the nomination.
The Partnership agreed unanimously to elect Bonnie Canaday as Chair and Mark White as Vice Chair of the Chehalis Basin Partnership Committee (CBP).
Mr. Kliem presented an outline of the workshop approach. The purpose of the workshop is to discuss alternatives and identify next steps for the CBP.
Members identified the pros and cons for each alternative. The four alternatives include:
Alternative A: Amend Milestone 3.1 to include Strategy 17 and 18 - Refine Entire IM 3.1 or Task 2 Only
Pros
Addresses Quinault Indian Nation’s (QIN) Concerns
Focuses on the Most Important Issue
Group Agreed to Revisit This in a Timely Manner
Instream Flow Is a Significant Issue – Must Start Now
Important Issue - Deals with Members’ Concern
Begins a Vital Process
CBP Begins to Address Instream Flows
Already Agree It Is Possible to Implement – Let’s Get It Done
Better Resolution Sooner
Cons
Expensive and Controversial
Could Delay Implementation
Only a Small Part of What Must Be Done
Disregards the Initial Planning Process
Difficult to Solve and Will Divert Resources
Focuses Work on Water Rights
Could Cause Overlook of Issues Along the Way
Lower Priorities Are Moved Higher
Takes Away from Time to Complete Strategies 6-10
Alternative B: Begin Implementing Strategies 1-5 in 2007 – Decide Sequence Later
Pros
Begin Seeing Actual Results
Leads to Faster Results
Allows Group Focus on Implementation
Focuses on Implementation Rather Than Planning
Gets Work on the Ground Sooner
Encourages other Entities to Begin Work
Actual Outcome (Work)
Takes Action on Highest Priority Issues
Delays Remaining Action Items
Need to Address More Than Strategies 1-5
Delays Action on Remaining DIP/WMP
Delays Other Strategies
Misses the Element of Alternative A
Loses Sight of Other Strategies
May Miss Opportunities to Impact a Real Issue
Narrow Focus
Alternative C: Continue Work to Develop Strategies 6-10 – Could Include Re-prioritizing Remaining Strategies 6-18
Adds Activities to DIP
Allows Planning Effort to Continue by Working on Next Course of Actions
Is In the Plan and Must be Done by the Entire Partnership
Completes Planning
Host Additional Workshops – Refine Remaining Watershed Management Plan (WMP) Actions
Continue Planning to Coordinate Future Work with Existing Work
Allows Multitasking
Opportunity to Flush Out Details
Delays Implementation
Spreads Resources Too Thin
Certain Issues Cannot Wait - Work Must Begin Now to Avoid Further Damage
Could Delay Actual Work
Will delay implementation
Distracts Focus Away from Implementation
Before Strategies 1-5 are Fully Developed?
Slows Implementation
Alternative D: Any Combination of alternatives A-C
Potential Implementation of WMP
DIP in Action
Allows for Maneuverability
Reflects Actual Results
Allows Implementation and Further Planning
Provides Flexibility
Keeps All Options Open
Provides Important Alternatives
Too Much Work
What First?
Diverts Focus from Implementation
Keeps All Options Open
Could Spread Group Too Thin
Could Lose Focus
Spreads Resources Too Thin
Time Consuming - Delay of Projects
The Partnership reviewed each alternative in terms of the pros and cons.
The Partnership agreed to pursue Alternative B, while recognizing additional issues that may arise during the process. The Partnership will evaluate its progress in September 2007 and decide whether to continue moving forward or revise the course of action.
Ms. Willis said she is excited to identify a course of action. This is probably the most difficult yet exciting step for the CBP.
Mr. Swartout agreed and indicated the study of instream flows should continue to be in the forefront if it is the decision of the Partnership. Clarifications within the DIP are warranted.
Mr. Harris expressed frustration with the amount of time it takes to achieve an accomplishment. However, it seems inevitable.
Mr. Jennings indicated the Partnership must continue to put forth realistic efforts on accomplishments and allow for adaptive management. There is no perfect course of action.
Mr. White indicated the Partnership has put forth great effort during the previous six months and is now beginning to make progress.
Ms. Napier agreed with the comments. The Partnership has many great ideas, but must decide upon priority and sequence.
Open Comments
Mr. Swartout suggested utilizing a similar exercise to prioritize action during the next meeting.
Ms. Napier stated she would like to bring the Coordinated Water Quality Monitoring Plan before the Partnership for endorsement.
Ms. Napier reported the Department of Ecology would like to discuss Interruptible Water Rights with the Partnership.
Chair Canaday said she is unable to attend the March 2007 CBP meeting.
Mr. Swartout suggested the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife follow legislative activity in terms of water planning that could affect the Partnership. Mr. Kalinowski acknowledged the request.
There being no further business, Chair Canaday adjourned the meeting at 11:50 a.m.
Prepared by Jessica Tate, Recording Secretary
Puget Sound Meeting Services