Draft Minutes
|
People in Attendance |
|
Terry Willis, |
|
Lee Napier, |
|
Dave Rountry, Department of Ecology |
|
Teri Franklin, |
|
Harry Pickernell, Confederated Tribes of the
Chehalis Reservation |
|
Ron Schillinger, City of |
|
Randy Lehr, Brady Engvall, Willapa Oyster Growers Happy Engvall, Willapa Oyster Growers Valerie Gow, |
Call to Order
Ms. Willis called the Chehalis Basin Water Quality
Committee meeting to order at
Update on Coordinated Water Quality Monitoring
Program
Randy Lehr reported the Quality Assurance Project
Plan (QAPP) for establishing a long-term Coordinated Water Quality Monitoring
Program in the
The program includes potential goals for a water
quality monitoring program, such as, identifying healthy waters and impacted
waters, etc. Mr. Lehr presented
information about a technique he’s previously used to help identify and
quantify different opinions of the public concerning water management, water
usage, water quality, and other water related issues. Mr. Lehr reported several years ago, he
taught an environmental science class.
To help determine if the class was beneficial to students, Mr. Lehr
reported he worked with a behavioral sociologist to determine a way of whether
the class had an impact on the students.
A tool in the form of a survey was developed for the students. Since that initial effort, Mr. Lehr said he
continued to work with the sociologist as well as working with a group of
students last year to modify the survey approach to understand more about the
students’ perceptions and understanding of natural resources and its
management. The students developed a questionnaire as part
of a class project to gauge what the students perceived about the value of
natural resources and acceptable management approaches.
Mr. Lehr said he is using a similar survey, which
has been modified to reflect the issues discussed by stakeholders throughout
the
The goals of the survey include:
1. Identify source(s) of value
for water resources in the
2. Identify level of
understanding of water resources in the
3. Identify where the majority
of citizens in the
4. Identify optimum/preferred
mechanism from communication among stakeholders.
5. Identify optimum/preferred
management options.
6. Identify level of confidence
in management tools.
It’s also important to gauge a person’s
understanding of water resources and general relationships associated with
water resource and land use. A behavior change continuum is a mental thought
process that a person mentally undertakes to 1) realize that water quality is
an issue that they should be concerned about, 2) that water quality is a
problem that directly affects them, 3) that water quality needs to be improved,
4) that it is important to take actions to improve environmental quality, 5) that
the person is confident that their actions can improve water quality, 6) and
that they intend to take action to improve water quality in the Chehalis Basin.
The first page of the survey includes basic demographic
information to ascertain whether the survey sampled a broad representation of
citizens within the
Ms. Willis referred to the survey’s first question
and asked whether the question relates to the importance of water resources to
the individual personally or to the person’s community. She said as a farmer, her response to the
question may reflect that the importance of water resources is for
irrigation. However, in reality, the
most important factor is water resources for everyone. Mr.
Lehr said the question could be answered based on taking 10 gallons of water
and determining the most important use for the majority of the water. Ms. Willis suggested including clarifying
information so that the question is clearly articulated and understood by the
respondent. Mr. Schillinger suggested
the question could ask: “Please rank the
following uses of water resources based on importance to you.” Additionally, the question could be phrased
to read, “Please rank the following uses of water resources based on the
importance to the community.” There
could be two different questions resulting in two different answers. Mr. Lehr acknowledged the suggestion and
noted the relationship is further explored in other questions within the survey
about the value of water resources to the person and to the
Dave Rountry arrived at
Mr. Pickernell suggested duplicating the question
based on the importance to the person and importance to the community.
Brady Engvall noted the rating for the question
ranges from 1 to 10. He suggested the
issue of ascertaining the importance of water resources to the individual or
the community could be ascertained by the individual’s ranking of the uses
under question #1. Members agreed. Mr. Lehr said he will review the issue with
the behavior sociologist.
Mr. Lehr referred to survey questions and asked for
feedback on presentation, content, and ability to attract respondents willing
to participate in the survey.
Ms. Napier asked about the plan for seeking survey
participants. Mr. Lehr said as part of
his class effort, he pursued different community organizations representing a
broad spectrum of the population. Survey
presentations were provided during community meetings soliciting
participation. Additionally, an
electronic survey could be available.
Ms. Napier said the survey could also be distributed during the Chehalis
Basin Watershed Festival. At the last
Steering Technical Committee (STC) meeting, Jim Hill volunteered to develop an
informational display about the
Mr. Pickernell asked about the timeline for
distributing the survey. Mr. Lehr said
he plans to continue refining the survey over the next several months and if
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant is awarded, he would like to
include the survey as a component of the grant project. At this point, there has been no information
received about the status of the grant.
After review and approval by the Partnership, Mr. Lehr said he would
like the survey to be an ongoing tool that could be used to increase
participation over time.
Ms. Willis commented positively about the range of
the ranking (1-10). Mr. Lehr said the
ranking is a product of trial and error as many of the first surveys had a 1-5
ranking, which created problems.
Subsequently, the ranking was extended from 1 to 10.
Mr. Lehr asked members to consider missing uses or
issues to include within the questions.
Several members commented that the issues listed in
question #2 offer important information to the respondent because many people
wouldn’t think of the issues.
Ms. Willis noted the ranking order is switched in
some of the questions and suggested revising the survey to ensure consistency
in ranking with 1=Very important, 10=Unimportant.
Mr. Lehr referred to question #21, “What means of
communication do you feel are most effective for facilitating water resource
management?” Another question in the old
survey in a different format included, “What entities should be the one presenting
the information?” He said he is unsure
if that question is also encapsulated in question #21. Ms. Willis suggested including the watershed
plan as one of the entities to ascertain if it is recognized by the
community.
Discussion followed about the ranking options for
question #22 ranging from individuals to corporations/governments on a scale of
1 to 10. Mr. Lehr said the driver behind
the question is that many people believe that their individual action really
drives what occurs in the world while there are others that believe the driver
is large corporations/government. The
question is intended to ascertain where a person’s belief is in reference to
that continuum. From a management
perspective, the desire is that most people believe they are empowered by their
own actions. If people feel that control
of water resources is not within their control, it will be very difficult to
convince them that if they do something differently, it will have an impact on
water resources. Mr. Lehr asked whether
the question captures that intent. Members
conveyed that they do not believe the question captures that intent. The question asks who should be responsible
rather that who is responsible. Perhaps
another question should ask who has the most impacts – individuals or
corporations and governments.
Mr. Engvall pointed out the ranking scale appears to
predetermine the importance by how the ranking scale is reflected:
|
#22 – Who should be most responsible for managing
water resources, individuals or corporations/governments? |
|
Individuals………………………About the
same………………………….Corporations/Governments |
|
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 |
Mr. Schillinger said the average person
participating in the survey is likely to believe that state and federal
governments are supposed to manage and protect water resources. Unless they are a member of a special
interest group, most individuals will likely believe it is someone else’s
job. Mr. Lehr said the answer will be
useful as many of the management strategies by different agencies is intended
to stimulate public participation in the management of the resource.
Mr. Engvall said DOE has taken some strong
positions. However, the Legislature has
often passed legislation to address issues that DOE was trying to address
properly. There are many issues that DOE
has attempted to properly address that have subsequently been removed by
legislation. Teri Franklin added that she
has attended many DOE meetings where there has been conversation about
violations of state water quality regulations.
However, DOE often indicates they must work with the offenders and that
the agency is limited in its response.
Often, the belief is that DOE is doing everything possible to protect public
resources when in reality the agency is not.
Ms. Willis said the survey will likely solicit
different answers from average citizens than from Chehalis Basin Partnership
stakeholders, who may not be an appropriate representation of the average citizen. Mr. Lehr said the demographic information
will help identify the survey respondent as well as some of the responses to
the questions.
Ms. Willis inquired whether local governments in
question #22 should be identified, such as, local, state, or federal. Mr. Lehr said questions #25 and #26 address
the issue by asking the respondent to identify activities and entities for
improving water resource quality.
Dave Rountry referred to the discussion on question
#22 and indicated there are two questions of interest that the question
addresses - “What level of influence do these different groups have now?” and
“What level of influence should they have?”
He suggested that if his questions are the appropriate questions, the
questions could be addressed more directly by having a different line or
ranking for each of the groups as well as adding other groups, such as the
Legislature, state agencies, citizens, businesses, landowners, and local
agencies. Mr. Lehr said the question
most informs the outreach component of what the Partnership is
undertaking. Additionally, questions #25
and #26 address what respondents believe will be the most supportive in
developing a new plan and what will be the most effective.
Mr. Schillinger offered some recommendations for
maintaining consistency of the rankings with each of the survey questions.
Mr. Lehr reviewed the survey questions and the
intent of each question.
Members offered the following suggestions:
·
Question #1 – add Hydro, Manufacturing, Recreation, and add “wildlife”
in the parentheses for item “e.”
·
Question #1 – the term, “in-stream” is often not understood by the
general public.
·
Question # 21 – include Internet as a choice
·
On the first page (demographic information) ask the respondent if they
use the Internet.
Mr. Lehr commented that questions #1 through #3
gauge values and level of understanding while the remaining questions pertain
to the behavioral change continuum.
Mr. Engvall suggested having the survey completed by
high school students.
Mr. Lehr asked for feedback on the survey as an
effective tool, any changes to improve the format, and additional questions to
include.
It was noted that the survey should identify how it
will be used or the value to be gained by completing the survey to inform the
respondent about the importance of completing the survey.
Mr. Engvall said there must be a linkage between
clean water and the benefits. If it can
be demonstrated that clean water achieves benefits, the importance of the
survey will be recognized.
Mr. Lehr offered to include a paragraph reflecting
the benefits of the survey and how the data will be used. Ms. Willis suggested including the
information in a cover letter.
Ms. Napier said another goal in addition to becoming
informed about the status of water quality in the
Ms. Willis suggested including a question between
questions #20 and #21 to state, “Do you feel well informed to make decisions
about water resources? Would you be
interested in more information about individual participation in water resource
management?”
Mr. Schillinger supported Mr. Engvall’s suggestion
concerning student participation. A
student’s role is to learn and share information. Students are also a reflection of their
parents and their respective lifestyle.
Mr. Lehr said there have been some efforts initiated
with elementary school students. After
participation in the classes, students begin to understand what a watershed is and
its importance to water quality.
Currently, the focus hasn’t been on high school students but focused
more on elementary school-age students.
Mr. Schillinger suggested intentionally structuring and separating the
surveys for different-sized high schools and comparing the results between the
schools. Mr. Lehr said the demographic
information includes zip code information, which will help identify the
distribution of the survey within the watershed.
Mr. Rountry asked whether the survey will suffice
for different age groups. Mr. Lehr
solicited suggestions for adapting the survey for younger ages.
Discussion ensued about how the survey will be
disbursed. Mr. Lehr said the survey will
be distributed to local organizations during meetings, posted on the website, and
provided to citizens during community events.
Ms. Napier said the Partnership’s work plan calls for developing an
educational outreach work plan for soliciting funding. Some of the tasks include developing
materials and talking points for Partnership members to discuss water
resources. She suggested developing some
talking points for the survey to afford a tool to stakeholders to share with
their respective community and citizens.
Mr. Lehr thanked members for their input.
Work Plan to Implement DIP –
Discussion
Ms. Napier reported in January, the Partnership held
a workshop on the work plan. When the
Partnership developed the Watershed Plan, there were 56 important actions. Discussions followed about implementing the
plan. Several of the most important
actions were developed into a work plan to determine where the resources should
be allocated. At the workshop in
January, during a facilitated discussion, members called for taking several
different paths for implementing actions.
One path included focusing on five actions described in the work
plan. Prior to development of the work
plan, there were approximately 13 more work plans that could possibly be
developed. However, due to the time and
the need for each plan to have a workshop, members discussed limiting the
effort to five actions. The Partnership
concluded it is most important to implement the strategies, interim milestones,
and tasks within the plan and that the STC, Water Quality Committee, and the
Habitat Work Group will focus on furthering implementation strategies until
September. After September, the effort
will be revisited.
The five work plans were divided and assigned
leads. The Water Quality Committee, with
Ms. Willis as the lead, was assigned to work on developing approaches to keep
agriculture and forestry on the land.
The STC directed the leads to review the strategy and determine how to
implement the strategy.
Ms. Napier suggested using the Plan 2 Fund software program
as the database to collect the information and generate the reports to help the
committee pursue its work and track progress on the strategy. She said she is still entering information in
the database and anticipates making more progress for future discussion on the
work plan.
Ms. Willis said she was unable to attend the STC
meeting. She said she plans to address
the issues that need to be addressed as well as what the committee has
previously discussed. She said she will
fill in the information for each of the units on what activities will be
necessary and why. Both agriculture and
timber activities have an impact on water quality.
Ms. Napier identified the other leads for the
individual strategies. The intent is to
have Plan 2 Fund available on the website so the lead can input information and
track progress. Website availability
will provide a way for others to review progress.
Bill Jarocki from
Ms. Napier said the work entailed in the effort has
generated discussions and speculation about the future of the Partnership and
it structure. The Partnership needs to
have a discussion on all expectations to determine an organizational structure
to carry forth funding and implementation efforts. Mr. Jarocki will facilitate the discussion.
Other Business
Ms. Napier briefed members on recent meetings with
legislators. A brochure for the Chehalis
Basin Partnership was developed containing information about the organization
and 2006 accomplishments. Several
members as well as Ms. Napier met with legislators in the House and
Senate. Legislators were provided with a
copy of the brochure as well as a list of 2007 legislative funding requests to
assist in implementing the Watershed Plan.
The STC was asked to develop a list of ideas for
projects during the 2007-2008 biennium.
The list included only those items which included a budget, project
description, and responsible entity. The
legislative funding list includes:
·
GIS Clearinghouse,
·
Ecosystem Diagnostic and Treatment Habitat Model, which currently
exists but it not managed. The requests
are to acquire the data and software and funding to administer the database.
·
Coordinated Water Quality Monitoring Program – establishing continuous
reading monitoring probes throughout the basin.
·
Scope of Work for analyzing the connection between river flows and
groundwater level.
·
Appropriation for supplemental support to support the administration of
the planning unit.
The funding request is for $560,000 in addition to
the current Phase 4 grant.
Ms. Napier shared names of legislators who met with
members. She acknowledged the efforts of
members who met with legislators.
Ms. Napier reported the Governor’s budget included
funds for DOE as part of its capital and operating funds. The Partnership is a component of that budget
as the information submitted by the Partnership for funding needs last year was
used by DOE as guidance in the development of DOE’s budget. However, DOE will also consider other
watershed funding requests in addition to the Chehalis Watershed funding
request. The House budget reflects
essentially the same as the Governor’s budget. The Senate budget includes the
DOE budget as well as $560,000 for the Chehalis Watershed. Members had several follow-up meetings with
legislators thanking senators for inclusion of funds in the budget and to House
legislators reminding them that when the three budgets are consolidated, the
line item for Chehalis Watershed remains intact.
Mr. Engvall referred to implementation activities and
the fecal TMDL. He asked if the work
plan relates to finding solutions for fecal TMDL. Ms. Napier said it does not directly tie into
the issue. However, during water quality
monitoring, the issue will naturally evolve and awareness will increase. Locally, as awareness increases, there will
be efforts to make a difference likely resulting in some projects. However, funding won’t likely be from current
funding sources. Ms. Willis added that
basically, the effort will be an opportunistic project that has the supporting
data as well as identified funding. Ms.
Napier said in addition, someone will need to take the lead on the project.
Ms. Willis commented on a conservation district that
needs a project but is lacking a technician.
She said she would like a technician to begin working but needs a
project to pursue as well as assistance to work through the grant process. Septic systems may be the first place to
start. Currently, work is underway with
RC&D on a coordinated effort to work on Japanese Knotweed across several
counties within the watershed. Ms.
Napier commented that the conservation districts of Lewis, Mason,
Mr. Engvall commented about some funding
availability from the Department of Health for shellfish. If septic systems within the shellfish
growing areas are impacting shellfish farmers, it is likely some progress could
occur. However, the Legislature only
views the issue narrowly as protection of shellfish interests rather than
protecting the entire watershed.
Teri Franklin reported the City of
Ms. Napier said the issue relates to the ground and
surface water discussion that cannot be accomplished basin-wide. It will need to occur in smaller areas.
Mr. Pickernell provided an update on the status of
water quality monitoring. There are 83
monitoring sites from Pe Ell to
Mr. Schillinger asked about the status of the map of
the monitoring sites. Mr. Pickernell and
Ms. Napier reported Mr. Lehr is working on the development of the map in
conjunction with the GIS Clearinghouse project.
Mr. Rountry commented about revisiting the priority
of the action items in the DIP. He asked
the committee to make a decision about discussing what water quality actions
have been implemented throughout the watershed.
It was clear last November, that the committee was a good place to
convene some discussions with a recommendation from Ms. Napier that it might be
valuable to request that someone, such as John Kliem, facilitate or moderate a
workshop of various interests – agriculture, cities, manufacturing, health
departments, and salmon enhancement councils on what water
enhancement/protection actions have been implemented. There are two reasons to revisit the
issue. It appears the Partnership has
lost focus on the good work it is implementing.
He said he was disappointed with the comments by different Partnership
members who were speaking as representatives of their constituent groups that
the Partnership is a group of planners and not an implementation group. He said he disagrees. As a body, the Partnership convenes monthly
and discusses issues, priorities, principles, and philosophies in the interest
in planning. However, as representatives
of constituent groups, there is much implementation occurring that must be
documented. The outcome of that
information feeds the plans and the education and outreach plans. Mr. Rountry said DOE has an obligation to
document the Detailed Implementation Plan for Water Quality Protection for
seven TMDLs. There have been discussions
for years about formulating a plan of action for water quality restoration to
address specific impairments. Priority
areas were identified for action as well as specific actions and funding
needs. Individual organizations that
participated in those discussions suggested actions that they expected to do.
Mr. Rountry said his obligation as part of his job
is to convene a discussion to ascertain if the actions have been
completed. Actions have occurred and
projects are being implemented that are creating change. The Partnership needs to take credit for its
work.
Ms. Willis agreed. Mr. Rountry suggested the effort
would likely be better if pursued as a committee. It would have a broader value to the
Partnership if the discussion encompasses all members. Ms. Willis replied that
to facilitate the discussion, she suggested the option of treating the Water
Quality Committee similarly to the STC as the brainstorming body. To begin the discussion, the committee will
need to review prior minutes to ascertain what was initially discussed about
documenting work completed.
Ms. Napier suggested that during the May meeting,
members could take the document as referenced by Mr. Rountry and put it into a
working format with information on what is known at this time or potential
contacts for obtaining information. The
information could be presented to the committee as a whole. Dependent upon the results, the committee
will have some basic information and will then know how much is required to
fill in the gaps to identify individuals needed to complete implementation
activities. She suggested using the next
meeting as an opportunity to ascertain the situation and use the table of
implementation tasks to ascertain what has or hasn’t been completed. The meeting could focus on perhaps planning a
workshop, which may or may not be necessary.
Mr. Rountry said there appears to be a tendency to
consider actions in a particular plan, such as the TMDL Implementation Plan, as
being very exclusive. For example,
salmon restoration is not identified in the plan and if a project has been
completed to benefit salmon restoration, there is a mindset not to consider and
acknowledge it. That is not the way the
committee conducts business. There were
discussions with the former Water Quality Committee concerning TMDL and there
was a revelation that funding for shoreline restoration and planting in the interest
of reducing sediment load and habitat restoration for fish recovery actually
helped improve oxygen conditions as well.
It can reduce transport and deposition of bacteria into the river. Suddenly, people began to see how these
issues interrelated.
Mr. Rountry agreed with Mr. Napier’s recommendation
regarding a potential workshop but cautioned the committee against restricting
itself. He suggested for a broader
discussion, a variety of projects should be considered that have been completed
to show the value of how it impacts the entire system.
Ms. Willis cautioned against taking on too much and
extending the work to other areas other than the basics, which can cause the
committee to lose track of its initial intent.
It will be important in the collection of information that the focus
remains on water quality issues recognizing that other issues affect water
quality.
Ms. Napier replied that the process can be managed
by undertaking an update activity with a guidance document.
Ms. Franklin asked about the status of McCleary’s
TMDL now that the new wastewater treatment plant is on line. Mr. Rountry indicted he did not currently
have the information available. He
offered to follow-up with permit managers in DOE.
Mr. Rountry conveyed a compliment received during a
recent DOE section staff meeting of the SW Region Water Quality Program. One of the permit managers for city treatment
plants observed that there have been significant improvements in water quality
within the
Ms. Willis reminded members the next meeting will
include a review of what the committee previously indicated it would do
regarding the tracking of completed implementation projects. Ms. Napier offered to work with Mr. Rountry
and review implementation plan actions, formulate the information into a table,
and identify leads for tasks.
Mr. Rountry provided an update on the Chehalis/Grays
Harbor Watershed Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL:
Detailed Implementation (Cleanup) Plan. There
was discussion many months ago at a Partnership meeting about any suggestions
or special needs for water quality research or research studies, such as TMDL water
quality studies or other water quality projects. There was one project that was recommended
that was led by Mr. Schillinger for Black Creek in the Montesano watershed to
address temperature. Several other
projects were discussed as well.
However, DOE agreed to undertake a limited study about pH listings that
would lead to completing a TMDL study.
DOE used existing data in the limited study and couldn’t justify a new
sampling effort to only evaluate pH conditions.
Mr. Rountry said he is developing a three-page summary of his
observations and current conditions, which will be reviewed by DOE’s Environmental
Assessment Program. After review a
recommendation will be rendered on potential next steps. He noted three of the areas appear to have
recovered while several others are experiencing acidic conditions. There may be more focused field evaluation
or technical assistance visits with landowners as opposed to more water quality
sampling. He said he will keep the
committee apprised on the status of the project.
Next Meeting –
Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting was
adjourned at
Prepared by: Valerie
Gow, Recording Secretary