Chehalis Basin Partnership Water Quality Committee
Grays Harbor Forestry Building
Montesano, Washington
May 10, 2007
9:00 a.m.
Draft Minutes
Lee Napier, Grays Harbor County
Ron Schillinger, City of Montesano
Dan Meier, Briggs Nursery
Samuel Iwenofu, Quinault Indian Nation
Dave Rountry, Department of Ecology
Brady Engvall, Willapa Oyster Growers
Randy Lehr, Grays Harbor College, Natural Resources Program Director
Jessica Tate, Puget Sound Meeting Services
Lee Napier called the Chehalis Basin Partnership Water Quality Committee meeting to order at 9:10 a.m.
Randy Lehr distributed the Chehalis Basin Water Resources Survey. The goal of the survey is to more effectively manage water resources by understanding how citizens value water throughout the basin. Results from the survey will be synthesized and used to guide decisions and policy for watershed management in the basin such as developing water quality monitoring systems, identifying the ranking of uses, and identifying issues for public outreach focus. He asked members to take the survey and provide input.
The committee completed the survey during a 30-minute recess.
Ms. Napier reported the survey captures key items from the detailed discussion during the last meeting. The survey appears to contain much information. However, all the information is warranted. She suggested questions 1 and 2 should have an option for indicating no knowledge of a particular topic to help explain answers to other questions in the survey.
Ron Schillinger commented that the 1 through 9 answer span seems excessive. He suggested using a smaller scale, or three word choices such as a lot, somewhat, and very little.
Brady Engvall commented that the survey seems to follow the opinion that global warming is fact. However, there are still some who believe it is a hoax.
Dan Meier agreed with Mr. Schillinger’s comments. He suggested providing three answer options such as agree, disagree, and no knowledge of the topic.
Ms. Napier asked about the reasoning for a wide answer span. Mr. Lehr explained that the intent is to see the actual public value and understanding of each topic and decide what type of public outreach is warranted.
Mr. Schillinger asked about the age of people who will be asked to participate in the survey. Mr. Lehr replied that individuals 18 and older will be asked to participate.
Samuel Iwenofu arrived.
Ms. Napier suggested providing incentives to encourage participation and condensing the survey if possible to ensure people are not discouraged from participating because of the length of the survey. The survey might be too lengthy for individuals to fill out during events, such as a county fair.
Mr. Schillinger commented positively about the survey and that it appears to cover a wide range of key issues.
Mr. Meier indicated citizens residing within the basin area are more likely to take the time to provide specific answers, ideas, or concerns.
Ms. Napier suggested it will be interesting to review survey results provided by the Granges.
Ms. Napier suggested adding an option of a property assessment to question 26 related to the types of activities an individual would be most willing to participate in to enhance water resource quality. Mr. Lehr acknowledged the request.
Mr. Iwenofu indicated the survey is very detailed and adequate for attaining the goal of water quality improvements. There will be a range of significant uses to consider.
Dave Rountry arrived.
Ms. Napier commented on the benefits of distributing the survey to various meeting groups who are interested in the issues. Mr. Schillinger agreed and specifically suggested tribal meetings.
Ms. Napier said the survey will achieve a much needed outreach component.
Mr. Meier suggested extra credit incentives for students who take the survey home to their parents.
Mr. Lehr indicated he will provide the general water quality trends and final summary of the state of water quality information for review and discussion at the next meeting.
Mr. Rountry asked about the timeline for obtaining the results of the survey. Mr. Lehr indicated the goal is to finalize the format for presentation at the next meeting.
Mr. Rountry asked when water quality trend analysis data will be presented. Mr. Lehr replied that the synthesis will be completed by the end of June 2007.
Mr. Rountry asked about the status of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Targeted Watershed Grant. Mr. Lehr indicated no new information has been received.
Discussion followed regarding the status of the City of McCleary’s treatment plant and the Weyerhaeuser user permitting and transition situation.
Discussion followed on how to proceed with the work plans to implement the Chehalis Basin Partnership’s Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP) and Department of Ecology’s (DOE) TMDL DIP. Mr. Rountry reported the intent is to collectively compare current and ongoing work, keep important items organized and focused, determine the need for adaptive management, and evaluate progress. The table should include priority of action and barriers of implementation. Evaluation and tracking of progress should take place routinely and co-managed by DOE and the Chehalis Basin Partnership (CBP). The ideal approach at this stage is to meet with important organizations such as Grays Harbor, Mason, Thurston, and Lewis County Conservation Districts to review each section of the table and note progress and obstacles.
Mr. Rountry said he would like to see the table include an account of other work occurring throughout the basin such as channel improvements and noxious weed control. Compiling the information along with the water quality accomplishments will help justify funding expenditures.
Mr. Rountry said he would like the CBP to prepare ongoing status report justifying the partnership and its growth. Ms. Napier stated it will be a big challenge to compile the amount of information mentioned into the Plan 2 Fund format. CBP members are overextended in terms of workload. Ms. Napier said she will provide the framework for reporting if Mr. Rountry provides the data.
Mr. Schillinger suggested scheduling a three-hour meeting with the conservation districts.
Ms. Napier recommended separating pollution sources into two groups.
Mr. Rountry reported that because of the number of entities involved in the Chehalis Basin it might be beneficial to divide the table into subbasins.
Ms. Napier reported she discovered several technical issues with Plan 2 Fund because it is a fairly new program. She will contact technical support regarding the issues.
Mr. Rountry and Ms. Napier agreed to correspond to determine the best approach for the table.
Mr. Rountry commented that the committee could be more productive with increased attendance. Ms. Napier indicated members who are not in attendance do follow the meeting information closely. It would also be helpful to contact members and encourage their attendance.
Ms. Napier recommended the committee begin organizing table information at the June 2007 meeting.
Mr. Engvall left the meeting.
Mr. Rountry noted the ultimate goal is to pursue and improve information to benefit the watershed. He recommended against using the past DIP framework again because it appears to be too arbitrary.
Mr. Rountry recommended two levels of discussion based on pollution sources and how to organize information.
Ms. Napier indicated she will send an example of how the Plan 2 Fund format might look electronically as a pilot to the reporting mechanism.
Mr. Rounty requested an update of the Coordinated Water Quality Monitoring Program at the next meeting.
There being no further business, Ms. Napier adjourned the meeting at 12:10 p.m.
Prepared by: Jessica Tate, Recording Secretary
Puget Sound Meeting Services