CHEHALIS BASIN PARTNERSHIP
Steering Technical Committee MEETING SUMMARY
Washington State Department of Ecology
300 Desmond Drive
Olympia, WA 98503
June 29, 2007
9:30 AM
PRESENT |
|
Steve Craig, WA State Department of Ecology |
Cheri Lindgren, Puget Sound Meeting Services |
Glen Connelly, Confederated Tribes of theChehalis Reservation |
Terry Willis, Citizen, Grays Harbor CountyJim Hill, Citizen, Lewis County |
Lee Napier, Grays Harbor County |
Chanele Holbrook-Shaw, Citizen, Thurston County |
Kahle Jennings, City of Centralia |
|
Kernen Lien, Lewis County |
|
Announcements and Introductions
Kahle Jennings called the Chehalis Basin Partnership (CBP) Steering Technical Committee (STC) meeting to order at 9:58 a.m.
Review Detailed Implementation Plan Amendment for Interim Milestone 3.5 and Possible Recommended Next Steps
The committee discussed background information on Interim Milestone (IM) 3.5, the Quinault Indian Nation’s (QIN) letter, and the need to press forward.
In the event the CBP is successful in securing a $250,000 grant for a storage project and $60,000 for water rights review in conjunction with interruptible water rights, Mr. Craig suggested the STC give some thought for a Scope of Work (SOW) for the grant.
Ms. Napier reported the committee agreed to release a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) or Request for Proposals (RFP) for the two grant projects. Respondents to an RFP could provide guidance on a proposed SOW.
Mr. Craig indicated the Department of Ecology (DOE) is supportive of the water storage project. He suggested the committee work with DOE on the SOW. The 2003 assessment identified a dozen storage projects. Through the SOW for this project, the STC/CBP would narrow the list to two or three to advance to a more detailed analysis to determine if the projects are feasible.
Members agreed for Ms. Napier, Mr. Jennings, and Mr. Swartout to work together and develop an RFP notice.
Mr. Jennings reported that river flows are already low.
Ms. Napier said it appears there is interest to move forward with IM 3.5. Revised language was prepared to incorporate in the Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP). The STC will address details of the tasks with implementation.
Discussion ensued about the QIN contributing financially to help advance IM 3.5 (interruptible water rights), related discussions at the CBP’s June meeting, and an August 2006 letter. It was noted that the QIN is not a CBP member.
Mr. Connelly said the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation is interested in storage projects and investigating instream flows for fish and habitat. The upper watershed is being drained of water and fish will suffer. IM 3.5 is a good step and was discussed with the initial plan. The Chehalis Tribe is fine with moving IM 3.5 up in the priority list.
There was general consensus to amend and incorporate the revised text into the DIP for approval by the Partnership in July.
Develop/Refine Scope of Work for Grant Contracts Including Phase 4 Year 2, and 2007 Legislative Appropriation
Ms. Napier briefed the committee on the Year 2 Phase 4 grant that commenced in June with an annual contract.
She distributed a revised SOW for the recent (Year 2) legislative appropriation.
Mr. Craig reported the Partnership could receive another $55,000 from DOE for the biennium.
Ms. Napier said the committee is currently working with the Year 2 grant. She reviewed the seven tasks identified in a contract with DOE that runs from July to October. Two of the tasks have been completed. The contract was extended to October to work out details for Tasks 6 and 7. All Year 1, Phase 4 monies have been spent. It was previously decided to spend Year 2 funds for project coordination (Ms. Napier and Puget Sound Meeting Services), outreach, and clarifying water rights. The balance was allocated to fund Tasks 6 and 7.
Ms. Napier distributed and reviewed a work program summary and budget matrix for the July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008 timeframe. The chart is not complete and does not include all legislative appropriation components. The tasks identified under Watershed Council – Year 2 relate to the first legislative appropriation.
Discussion ensued about the format and how to identify all the tasks.
The committee discussed the legislative appropriation Year 2 SOW. Feedback from the last STC meeting was incorporated. A total of $75,000 ($35,000 FY 2008 and $40,000 FY 2009) has been allocated for Task 1 – Increase Administrative Capacity; however, discussions related to the Partnership’s organizational structure didn’t provide guidance about how to advance the task. The Partnership appointed a subgroup to formulate the task/outcome and deliverables. Ms. Napier suggested leaving Task 1 as a placeholder to backfill. The $55,000 the Partnership could receive from DOE could be split between two fiscal years. The estimated costs are likely to increase. She noted her time and Puget Sound Meeting Services will come from the Year 2, Phase 4, funding stream.
Ms. Napier explained she has to be available to do other projects for Grays Harbor County. Grays Harbor County Commissioners want to be engaged with the Partnership, are happy to act as the fiscal agent, and willing to provide as much support as possible.
Discussion ensued about whether Grays Harbor County is interested in hiring additional staff to support the Partnership. Commissioners are looking for clear direction about next steps. Members referred to previous conversations about non-profit governance structures. Ms. Napier said Grays Harbor County will probably not provide office space and similar support for a non-profit.
Ms. Willis said Ms. Napier needs help now regardless of whether the organizational structure changes. She suggested the STC make a decision and provide direction acknowledging it could change in the future.
Members discussed hiring a temporary employee who could work for three or four months at a time. Ms. Napier said the county is not able to extend a temporary employee’s appointment for an additional three- or four-month period. She said she needs assistance with implementation and committee work. The committee discussed a potential job description and flushed out responsibilities. Ms. Napier suggested a possible job title of Watershed/Project Coordinator.
Dialogue ensued about how to re-energize the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), which could help to address and solve other issues. Mr. Craig said the CAC will require support staff to develop meeting agendas and keep notes. The STC could discuss expectations at the next meeting. Ms. Napier agreed that re-energizing the CAC might be a first step to build administrative capacity. The CAC has done a good job of providing educational meetings and gathering information; however, it’s not transitioned to implementation. A Watershed/ Project Coordinator could bridge the gap.
Mr. Jennings noted close coordination between Ms. Napier and another person is required until the new person is trained. It makes sense for the committee to support the county hiring additional staff.
Mr. Hill suggested the committee first create a job description to inform whether a consultant, temporary hire, or another employee is needed.
Ms. Holbrook-Shaw and Ms. Willis agreed that re-energizing the CAC to handle outreach and education components is important.
Additional comments about CAC and Watershed/Project Coordinator responsibilities are summarized as follows:
In summary, another staff person could initially be responsible for CAC outreach/education/public and then subsequent tasks to advance plan implementation.
Mr. Jennings suggested looking at hiring an additional half-time person with next year’s budget for a period of not less than one year. He said he supports Grays Harbor County hiring and housing a half-time employee that would work for Ms. Napier. Ms. Napier indicated she would follow up with a job description. It was acknowledged that oversight is a new component. The Partnership would fund the half-time employee. Further discussion about a Partnership governance structure followed.
Mr. Craig said re-energizing the CAC is a Partnership policy decision compared to coordinating with existing citizen groups that are part of the organization. Ms. Napier said new staff could work with the CAC to evaluate options.
Conversation followed about the current make-up and representation on the CAC. Ms. Willis stated not all CAC members vote. County representatives are randomly selected. She said she is unsure that the person voting can best represent that person’s respective organization/group. It’s one reason why citizens do not actively participate. A citizen coming to the table should have the power to represent themselves and their constituents. Individuals are appointed and volunteer to attend meetings and soon realize their voice is minimal.
Mr. Jennings offered a suggestion that each county commission appoint citizens representing agricultural, oyster, forestry, fishing, and/or urban industries. The commissioners should make it clear that individuals appointed comprise the CAC for Grays Harbor County and will work together to identify citizen issues. The CAC would come to the Partnership with a common voice representing a diversity of interests. He acknowledged the substantial time commitment required for individuals serving on the CAC. County commissioners should be responsible to ensure individuals appointed to the CAC are accountable.
Ms. Holbrook-Shaw commented that CBP meetings are scheduled during working hours.
The committee agreed to further discuss the role and responsibilities of the CAC, a job description for a Watershed/ Project Coordinator, and Ms. Napier’s job description at the August STC meeting.
The committee resumed its discussion of the SOW for the Year 2 legislative appropriation. Ms. Napier reported Grays Harbor College is working on Tasks 2 and 3. She reviewed the two tasks and estimated budgets.
A draft Project Goals and Study Plan – Ground Water and Surface Water Management Study, prepared by HDR Engineering for the CBP STC was distributed. Related to task 4, Analyze the connection between river flow and ground water levels, Mr. Craig said it was his understanding from the last meeting that the STC decided to move forward with a contract. Ms. Napier said it was not clear. She heard there is a need for a larger project, data gathering, and that some work was moving forward. Mr. Craig said the estimated $90,000 budget would help advance a long-term project. It shows a commitment at this point and places the Partnership in a favorable position to leverage additional funding for a larger, multi-year project. US Geological Survey (USGS) and DOE laid out a program that the Partnership would manage and complete within the next year. Ms. Napier reviewed the June 7, 2007 STC meeting summary. She noted a comment was made at the last meeting that Centralia was covering some of the data gathering costs associated with a gaining/losing reach study.
Mr. Jennings explained Centralia is pursuing work related to water rights and not Task 4 within the Skookumchuck Basin. If the STC were to select the Skookumchuck Basin, Centralia can match funding with its work program. He said he asked HDR to draft a proposal to inform as an alternate strategy. A goal was to complete something this year. USGS could include the project in its budget for next year; however, HDR can complete the groundwork this summer and report in December 2007. A question is when USGS could complete the task. The field work would be integrated into a larger basin model.
Mr. Lien arrived at 11:24 a.m.
Mr. Craig said scheduling a high level meeting with USGS and DOE is necessary to discuss agency recommendations and develop an overarching strategy about how to move forward in the next year. He volunteered to follow up on a written proposal. If the STC can demonstrate it has initiated a multi-year process with acknowledgement from USGS and DOE, it will help the Partnership secure additional funding streams for the work. It was agreed Mr. Craig will organize a meeting with USGS and DOE to develop a SOW for the $90,000 budget.
Mr. Jennings noted that unless the Partnership moves quickly, HDR cannot complete the work detailed in the handout this year. The survey work needs to be completed during the dry season. The data is fundamental to a model for the Chehalis Basin.
Ms. Napier said identifying the deliverables and determining if data should be gathered during the 2007 dry season is needed.
Mr. Craig expressed concern about delaying further development of a long-term strategy.
Discussion ensued about deliverables, and committee members clearly understanding alternatives (planning versus data collection) and implications associated with the alternatives. Mr. Jennings added that a decision is up to the Partnership.
Members discussed Task 5, Acquire data and administration of EDT model. Ms. Napier reported a total of $90,000 is budgeted for FY 2008 to acquire the model and contract with Grays Harbor College to administer the Ecosystem Diagnostic and Treatment (EDT) habitat model. Grays Harbor College will pay for administrative costs in the second year.
Conversation followed about the status of the model (developed) and specific work tasks.
Discussion followed regarding the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) and the US Army Corps of Engineers financially supporting the work. Ms. Napier said she’s requesting the Corps to cover the $40,000 cost to purchase data relevant to the Chehalis Basin.
Mr. Craig strongly encouraged the STC to refine the tasks. Ms. Napier replied she and Mr. Lehr will work to refine the tasks. The work will expend the legislative appropriation.
Reflect and Discuss Outcome Related to Organization Meeting Discussion from the June 22, 2007 CBP Meeting
STC members offered feedback concerning organizational structure discussion during the June 22, 2007 CBP meeting. Some members indicated the discussion was confusing while other members said the results were disappointing.
Mr. Craig commented that a group volunteered to develop a nonprofit organization.
Several commented that Mr. Jarocki presented the nonprofit concept as the best approach. Other alternatives were not presented or considered. Mr. Hill said it was his understanding that the group volunteered to explore and present options.
Mr. Craig stated he spoke with Mr. Swartout who has indicated a preference to investigate a nonprofit option. The STC is primarily interested in creating a mechanism to secure additional revenue sources for the planning unit.
Ms. Napier and Ms. Willis disagreed that a group volunteered to put together a nonprofit. Mr. Hill said he volunteered with the intent to gather more information and pursue other options. Ms. Willis said she was interested to learn the pros and cons associated with all governance options at the Partnership meeting.
Mr. Hill said Mr. Jarocki offered to facilitate a subcommittee meeting. He suggested that Mr. Jarocki attend the Partnership meeting when the subcommittee presents additional findings to the CBP.
Mr. Craig commented that creating a nonprofit is a watershed management strategy. Other options such as special districts are more cumbersome.
Mr. Jennings agreed with comments articulated by Ms Willis and that he expected more of an overview of what other planning units are doing and the pros and cons. A nonprofit might provide an appropriate governance structure. Some Commissioners want to pursue an analysis process. He said he’d like to see a list of lead agencies, lead entities, and funding sources. In addition, are there are other groups (Nisqually River Council) with a nonprofit component (funding arm only).
Mr. Hill said the Partnership should proceed with the ad hoc committee, invite Mr. Jarocki to assist in developing alternatives, and present alternatives to the Partnership as soon as possible.
Ms. Napier said the STC asked Mr. Jarocki to engage in a discussion on reexamining the organizational structure for watershed plan implementation. The STC developed a list of organizational needs at the last meeting. She said she spoke to Mr. Jarocki about organizational needs. However, that conversation did not occur with the Partnership.
Discussion ensued about an STC member working with the subcommittee on organizational needs, whether a nonprofit fits the needs, and development of other alternatives. Ms. Willis said the information could then be presented to the Partnership for action.
Mr. Jennings and Mr. Connelly offered to research and compile data on how other watershed management groups (lead agencies) are organized.
Members agreed it was not necessary for Mr. Jarocki to facilitate another Partnership meeting.
Ms. Napier said she will follow up with Mr. Swartout and Mr. Jarocki to organize a meeting about governance with the intent of picking up where the STC left off in early June.
Ms. Napier added that the STC and CBP need to understand what a nonprofit can do, how it’s tied to the Partnership, and that the organizational needs will identify an appropriate governance organization.
Mr. Hill said some nonprofits are unable to lobby based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules.
The following items were identified for the Partnership’s July meeting agenda:
The following topics were identified for the STC’s August meeting:
Ms. Willis reported she recently provided a tour of her farm to 12 Evergreen State College environmental class students.
Discussion ensued that additional staff support and governance are separate issues for the time being. Ms. Napier conveyed that she will work on a Watershed/Project Coordinator job description. A draft description will be circulated to STC members for review.
With no further business, Mr. Jennings adjourned the meeting at 12:17 p.m.
Prepared by Cheri Lindgren, Recording Secretary
Puget Sound Meeting Services