CHEHALIS BASIN PARTNERSHIP
Steering Technical Committee MEETING SUMMARY
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Building
600 Capitol Way
Olympia, WA
March 1, 2007
9:30 AM
People in attendance |
|
Chanele Holbrook Shaw, Thurston County Citizen (9:42 a.m.) |
Bruce Jones, Quinault Indian Nation |
Glen Connelly, Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis |
Cheri Lindgren, Puget Sound Meeting Services |
|
Terry Willis, Grays Harbor County Citizen |
Petra Shenk, UCSB |
Lee Napier, Grays Harbor County |
|
Kernen Lien, Lewis County (11:53 a.m.) |
|
Chad Stussy, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife |
|
Mark Swartout, Thurston County |
|
Kahle Jennings, City of Centralia |
|
Announcements and Introductions
Chair Mark Swartout called the Steering Technical Committee (STC) meeting to order at 9:38 a.m. He reviewed the following agenda:
· Discuss revised Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP) to answer Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) response and plan workshop.
· Discuss decision rules and apply to DIP.
· Interruptible water rights – discuss upcoming workshops hosted by Department of Ecology (DOE) and determine level of participation.
· Discuss and set Chehalis Basin Partnership (CBP) agenda for March 23, 2007.
Discuss Revised Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP) to Answer Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) Response and Plan Workshop
Ms. Napier reported that initially in response to the QIN letter, the STC believed it is appropriate to amend Interim Milestone (IM) 3.1 by adding additional tasks (2.1 and 2.2) under Task #2.
Ms. Holbrook Shaw arrived.
At the last STC meeting, it was determined that task #2.2 was DIP Strategy #18. Members spent quite a bit of time flushing out the tasks and decided to bring Strategy #18 forward as a work plan. Ms. Napier suggested striking task #2.2 with Strategy #18 becoming IM 3.5. Chair Swartout noted the Chehalis Basin Partnership (CBP) conceptually supports the proposal. Ms. Napier conveyed that the Partnership has asked the STC ensure all the tasks are identified and schedule a workshop with stakeholders to discuss IM 3.5.
Discussion ensued about the process and status of the work to date, the difference between stakeholders and experts, and at what stage in the process to involve each.
Chair Swartout said stakeholder (including Fish & Wildlife and the Tribes) input is needed to help develop the goals and objectives. The experts would be available at the second workshop to assist with integrating the technical information into the goals and objectives developed by the STC. The STC will compile the results and present the results to the Partnership.
Discussion followed about a workshop format, discussion topics for stakeholders and experts, and Timeline #5 within DIP Strategy #18. Ms. Napier said the “schematic” (Figure 2, DIP Development, Review, Adoption, and Implementation Process) applied to each step along the way. Ms. Willis added the DIP notes that stakeholders are involved throughout the process, including development of final recommendations. Chair Swartout said the workshop attendees could form a standing committee until the DIP amendment is presented to the Partnership for approval.
Mr. Jones said the proposed IM 3.5 actions/tasks are not sequenced. Ms. Napier conveyed that they could be changed prior to the workshops.
Members discussed Action #9, “Improve enforcement of existing laws and regulations to support voluntary efforts.” Ms. Willis pointed out that there are regulatory issues standing in the way of voluntary actions, such as off channel “diking” wetlands for wildlife functions. The property owners didn’t have any problems getting permits to construct the dikes for wildlife. She said she would not be allowed to do the same thing for irrigation purposes. Mr. Jennings suggesting posing the question about diverting and storing water rights to the Partnership.
Discussion ensued about a potential “use it or lose it” agriculture bill and that the Conservation District is involved. Ms. Willis announced that a workshop is scheduled to talk about policy issues and incentives for agriculture. She said she’s been invited to attend.
Mr. Jones suggested adding the issue (small dike storage for agriculture lands) within the committee’s work plan for a future discussion.
Chair Swartout summarized that the STC proposes to use the same process to take the amendment to a broader audience. Members discussed potential workshop dates and a place to hold the workshops. Ms. Napier reported Facilitator John Kliem is available on Friday, April 20, 2007, April 23 through 25, 2007, and he has volunteered to facilitate a workshop on May 2, 2007. He is out of town from May 3 through 11, 2007. Members reviewed their respective schedules. Chair Swartout asked Mr. Jennings if he could chair the workshop in his absence if it’s scheduled between April 23 and 25, 2007. Mr. Jennings volunteered to take the lead concerning water quantity issues. Members determined that Tuesday, April 24, 2007, was the best date. The workshop will likely run from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Ms. Napier and members reviewed a list of potential stakeholders to invite: Partnership, STC, Department of Health, DOE, Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, QIN, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), cities, counties, US Geological Survey (USGS), legislators, Governor, Attorney General (AG), the Farm Bureau, citizen advisory groups, US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Corps of Engineers, and an elected city official.
Ms. Willis reported the Farm Bureau offices are available for the workshops; however, the rental fee is $300. Mr. Jennings indicated he will follow up with alternate workshop locations in the Olympia area.
Ms. Napier reported Mr. Lien forwarded comments to her electronically about the proposed changes for IM 3.1. Task 2.1 seems to conflict with new IM 3.5, which is to reevaluate instream flow levels. If the group is proposing to evaluate and possibly recommend new instream flows, the group should not also recommend retaining current regulatory flows. Mr. Jones said it was his understanding the STC recommended retaining current instream flows until new information was available. Mr. Jennings pointed out the 1976 flows will not go away regardless. He asked Ms. Napier to forward Mr. Lien’s e-mail to him. He said he will contact the state and follow up.
Discuss Decision Rules and apply to Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP)
Ms. Napier distributed copies of a document titled, “Objective decision rules as a means to prioritize watershed management plan actions, prepared by the STC and accepted by the CBP January of 2005,” that includes an example of how it was applied to a specific application and a “Decision Model – Phase IV Interim Milestones” document. An idea was to apply the decision rules and score each of the DIPs and Interim Milestones. Ms. Napier said she believes the DIPs have been rated. Prioritizing within and across the DIP is still necessary. At last month’s meeting, the STC discussed ways to address the actions taken by the Partnership, such as focusing on DIPs 1 through 5 and then setting priorities.
Discussion ensued about how to proceed with prioritizing and ranking the activities. Suggestions are summarized as follows:
· The STC could first focus on DIP #18 and its eight IMs.
· Before prioritizing DIP #18 and its milestones, the group should finish the DIP and identify who should take the lead on the top five strategies previously identified, followed by which strategy should go first, and then refine the individual tasks.
· Is it necessary to prioritize a DIP that only has two IMs?
· Even though the Partnership decided to implement DIP Volume 1 that includes five DIP strategies, there is no organization that can implement all five.
· Look at the top five DIPs, add #18, apply the decision-making rules to the six, and present a sequencing recommendation to the Partnership. It was pointed out that Strategy #18 would be incorporated within DIP Strategy #3 as IM 3.5.
Mr. Jennings suggested an alternative approach. Rather than assign values, the group can identify current resources and those can become the priorities. Chair Swartout added member agencies would have to agree to take on the tasks. The IM’s identified with the strategies can then move forward concurrently. Mr. Jones volunteered to assist Mr. Jennings and help co-chair DIP #3. He suggested the STC, as a group, should work on DIP #2, “Recommend adequate funding levels for water resources management.”
Discussion ensued about sequencing IMs within each DIP strategy or removing the IMs from the strategies and prioritizing all of them. Mr. Jennings said the top five priorities have been identified. The next step is to determine how to implement the priorities. Mr. Jones suggested that Ms. Willis could take the lead with DIP #4, “Develop approaches to keep forestry and agriculture on the land.” Mr. Jennings said each Partnership member should dedicate resources to implement a component of the DIP. The STC concurred with Mr. Jennings’ alternative approach. Ms. Willis reported she might know of some resources that can help with IM 4.1, “Inventory and analysis.” Mr. Jones referred to IM 4.2d, “Innovative approaches to water rights” and stated that it might be the appropriate point to talk about dike storage and water right banking. Ms. Willis volunteered to facilitate DIP #4. Mr. Jones said he and his staff can dedicate resources where needed.
Conversation proceeded about assigning leads to assist with implementing the DIPs (rather than individual interim milestones), scheduling meetings and/or brainstorming sessions to refine the DIPs, the likelihood that refinement will lead to identifying further steps (resources and budget) within the IMs, and similarities between some of the DIPs that could advance on parallel paths.
Mr. Jennings and Ms. Napier stated they are willing to commit resources, but they need to know where to focus the resources and, in some cases, what to respond to in light of the current workload. Mr. Jennings added that he’s not willing to commit time and resources for activities that are not important to him.
Chair Swartout suggested the STC identify core issues that overlap other activities and focus time and resources on those. It was noted that the Habitat Work Group is also working on related DIP strategy #5, as well as the Water Quality Subcommittee. There are potentially two new focal points: keeping forestry and agriculture on the land (Ms. Willis lead), and the water quantity component (Mr. Jennings lead). Concerning the water quantity component, the focus should be instream flow and working towards groundwater modeling.
Mr. Stussy outlined habitat programs currently underway. A concern is to not pull resources from efforts currently ongoing because the STC has identified a different priority. Members need to continue to support the existing work efforts and not divert resources or funds to address more recently identified priorities. Discussion ensued about foundation projects various members of the group are working on that are critical to future successes.
Ms. Willis noted the Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) is looking for projects to work on. Mr. Jones suggested RC&D could assist with IM 4.2b, “Promoting local agriculture and forestry – sustain, promote, and develop.” It was noted Mr. Jennings would also chair DIP #3, “Identify tools available to meet the water quantity goals,” and that DIP #5, “The Partnership recommends exploring a range of approaches to improve communications, coordination, and consolidation of all habitat efforts in the Chehalis Basin” is under the Habitat Work Group’s purview.
Ms. Napier asked the group to think about the next steps and how to make progress. Mr. Jennings conveyed that he plans to develop a work plan. Ms. Napier suggested members provide a status report for the next STC meeting. Mr. Jennings said the report back to the Partnership should include how the STC looked at how the decision rules apply to the DIP to sequence actions. The STC decided to prioritize the tasks based on the time members are willing to commit to implementing certain activities and presenting the recommendations to the Partnership.
Discussion followed about how many of the IMs that fall within each of the four activities are identified. Ms. Napier commented DIP #2, “Recommend adequate funding levels for water resources management,” will remain with the STC. Members stated that grant writing, securing matching funds, and the legislative brochure are activities that fit within DIP #2. Mr. Jones suggested developing a tracking mechanism for accomplishments. It was determined a fifth activity consists of oversight and coordination by the STC.
Discussion followed about “plan to fund,” that tasks related to the activities identified above will overlap with DIP #2, how citizen representatives can support and/or add value to the process (example, helping to develop an education and outreach work plan for soliciting funding), that the DIP leads need to determine which IMs relate to the individual strategies and flush out the implementation tasks, and how STC members organize the next phases.
Chair Swartout said that assigning leads and presenting it to the Partnership helps to confirm that the current organizational structure is not set up for implementation, which requires further discussion. He referred to an individual that has conducted a study about different organizational structures for implementing watershed plans.
Members discussed what implementation can mean and that a sustained funding source is key to implementation.
Mr. Jones said appointing a watershed executive director charged with coordinating implementation of the plan would be ideal.
Conversation about water issues Tenino is facing and how to involve the town in the process followed. Suggestions included having the STC meet in Tenino, scheduling a discussion with the Partnership and inviting Tenino representatives to the meeting, and exploring the televising of the meetings on the local access channel.
Mr. Jones suggested the group move forward and develop a STC work plan for the year. An ongoing agenda topic for future meetings would include the leads providing status reports.
Chair Swartout said the group could develop a Project Tracking Table for leads to complete prior to each meeting. He provided an example on the white board. The columns could include activities identified, identify members working on the activities, actions taken, and next steps. The table would remain cumulative. Mr. Jones commented that the table could also serve as an annual reporting mechanism. Members discussed how the leads could fill in the blanks and that the goal is to keep the table simple and whether cross-referencing the milestones is possible.
Mr. Lien arrived.
Chair Swartout offered to e-mail Ms. Napier an example of a table.
Chair Swartout recessed the meeting from 12:03 p.m. to 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Stussy and Mr. Jennings left the meeting during the break.
Interruptible Water Rights – Discuss Upcoming Workshops Hosted by Ecology and Determine Level of Participation
Members discussed their level of participation in the upcoming DOE workshops concerning interruptible water rights. Ms. Willis explained the Conservation District had an opportunity to participate indirectly with a series of workshops several years ago. District representatives offered information and answered questions. Ms. Holbrook Shaw said it’s important to clarify in the beginning that the Partnership is not a regulatory agency or department. Ms. Napier noted members who can attend the workshops on behalf of the Partnership. She reviewed the upcoming DOE workshop dates and locations:
· March 13, 2007 - Sharon Grange in Porter from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
· March 14, 2007 - Newaukum Grange from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
· March 15, 2007 – Olympic View Grange in Brady from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Ms. Napier presented a brochure updated in 2005 about the Chehalis Basin Partnership. Copies could be available for distribution at the workshops, as well as other information such as habitat and/or subbasin maps. The group asked Ms. Napier to forward copies of the brochure electronically to STC members.
Ms. Willis emphasized that those attending the workshops will want to talk about water rights. Chair Swartout agreed with Ms. Holbrook Shaw that it’s important to disassociate the Partnership from DOE. He suggested having a copy of the watershed plan marked “display only” for those that might be interested in learning more about the Chehalis Basin Plan. Discussion ensued about whether the STC has established a goal for the evening. Chair Swartout said members will attend and listen and gain an understanding about the role of the Partnership. At this point, the Partnership does not have a role at the workshop. Ms. Napier added she’d like to use the workshops as an opportunity to recruit new members.
Chair Swartout said the letter DOE sent didn’t incorporate any of the committee’s comments.
Discussion ensued about how the STC members could promote DIP strategies related to interruptible water rights at the workshops. Mr. Connelly added that members could begin to also collect ideas for mitigation. Members agreed to develop a sign-in sheet to be used at the workshops. Attendees could note their area of interest, where they live, and what’s on their minds. The list could also serve to reenergize the citizen advisory committee.
Ms. Napier said she will follow up and ask DOE to reserve a table for the STC to use at the workshops.
Members discussed purchasing a banner for outreach purposes and initiating a children’s logo contest to develop a logo that could be used for future Partnership activities. Ms. Holbrook Shaw indicated she would follow up on coordinating a logo contest.
Mr. Jones suggested providing a GIS map of the watershed with the subbasins, gauges, cities and rivers identified, with a shade relief and land uses available at the workshops. Chair Swartout said it might be a good idea to talk to DOE’s public information officer about information the agency is planning to provide. The Partnership could request DOE provide a GIS map. DOE and not the Partnership should talk to attendees about the interruptible water rights issue.
STC members agreed to provide a sign-in sheet, have a copy of the watershed plan and DIP for “display” purposes only, that DOE should provide any necessary maps, and provide a one-page summary highlighting activities of the Partnership. Ms. Willis suggested the STC’s table should be located near the back and/or off to the side to distance the committee from the front of the room.
Discuss and Set CBP Agenda for March 23, 2007
Chair Swartout drafted a tentative agenda for the CBP’s March 23, 2007 meeting with member input as follows:
· Introduce new GIS Coordinator and possibly provide a demonstration
· Report on the DIP work plan assignments, new process, four activities and lead persons identified
· Recap on the DOE workshops, invite DOE staff to attend and brief the Partnership, and answer the question, “what’s next?” (45 minutes)
· STC’s response to the QIN letter; move Strategy #18 under IM 3.2, report on workshop (April 24, 2007) scheduled and ideas that will be presented, and review a list of invitees
· A status report on the festival if an update is available
· If time allows, WDFW could provide a fish management update report
Ms. Napier reported she has asked the City of Aberdeen to co-sponsor an event scheduled for October 13, 2007 by paying the $900 rental fee for the facility. She has not yet received an answer to the request.
Ms. Napier indicted she would follow up with members about the STC’s April meeting location.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Swartout adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
Prepared by Cheri Lindgren, Recording Secretary
Puget Sound Meeting Services