CHEHALIS BASIN
PARTNERSHIP
Steering Technical Committee MEETING SUMMARY
Washington Department of Fish and
MEMBERS PRESENT
|
OTHERS PRESENT
|
Lee Napier,
|
Chanele
Holbrook-Shaw, Citizen,
|
Mark Swartout,
Debbie
Carnevali, WDFW
|
Cheri Lindgren,
|
Kahle Jennings,
City of
|
Nadine Romero,
|
Kernen Lien,
|
|
Glen Connelly,
Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis
Reservation
|
|
Terry Willis,
Citizen,
|
|
Welcome & Introductions
Chair
Mark Swartout called the
Plan2Fund and Plan2Fund OPT
Discussion
Bill
Jarocki, Boise State University (BSU), provided members with a demonstration of
the BSU Environmental Finance Center (EFC) website at www.efc.boisestate.edu. Three specific tools, Plan2Fund, Plan2Fund
OPT (Objective Prioritization Tool), and the Directory of Watershed Resources
are useful for creating comprehensive plans and multiple-year budgets,
determining priority projects, and locating funding for implementation. The tools can be accessed at no charge by
registering at the EFC website. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided funding for Plan2Fund and
Plan2Fund OPT tools that BSU created for the Partnership using Excel. Data is stored on an independent server that
is password protected. BSU is modifying
the program to a web-based model that includes an improved financial interface
for grant writing purposes and enhanced financial reporting.
Mr.
Jarocki reported the Plan2Fund OPT tool runs on BSU’s website. He described and demonstrated how the tool is
designed, the process to input all plan objectives into the model, and creating
a first step prioritization decision model.
A template is available to enter decision rules. He reviewed a menu showing values used to
score decision rules. A sample
worksheet, where scoring takes place and the user can modify rule values, was
demonstrated. The model automatically sorts
the scores, sequences objectives, and builds a comparison report in Excel. The model provides a clear list of priorities
and scores for each objective once decision rules and ranking criteria are
defined. Reactions to the tool have been
very positive.
Discussion
ensued about the ability to add other subtasks, not exaggerating planning to
the point it slows down implementation, and that tasks and subtasks can
change. Mr. Jarocki said prioritization
will be based on objectives rather than tasks.
Enhancements can be built and added in the future. Each tool includes a discussion board so
users can engage with other users. The
program tracks who are using the tool, and can solicit feedback from users.
CBP Governance Structure
Chair
Swartout reported there were concerns expressed about a nonprofit governance
following discussions at a previous CBP meeting. He said he recently spoke with a Nisqually
River Foundation representative about errors and omissions insurance. The presentation at CBP was focused on a
nonprofit and there were no other governance options presented. Another strategy is to develop a list of
available options and evaluate the pros and cons of each to inform a decision
by the Partnership.
Mr.
Jarocki said there should be a nexus between a fee and service received by the public
that is proportional among ratepayers.
Mr.
Swartout described public benefits of a flood district. Using
Discussion
followed about why benefit districts are created. Mr. Swartout said what’s needed is a legal
organization that has the authority to contract. He
asked if the Legislature could create an organization, such as a council of
government. Mr. Jarocki answered
yes.
Members
discussed other potential governance structure options:
·
Special purpose districts
·
Council of government (ex:
·
Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC), separate from council of
governments, different authority
·
Status quo
·
Approaching the Legislature about creating a watershed council
·
Nonprofit, foundation
·
A question is what kind of organization or management structure
provides continuity and ensures that the Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP)
plan can be executed (day-to-day management)
Ms.
Napier said legislation to form watershed districts or councils was discussed
approximately three years ago.
Mr.
Jarocki searched for Whatcom County Council of Governments on the
internet. A financial document was
available on the web. He speculated that
the organization is receiving planning funds from member dues.
Mr.
Swartout noted the fiscal agent for the Partnership is
Ms.
Napier added that Grays Harbor Community College (GHCC) has sponsored proposals
on behalf of the Partnership.
Mr.
Jarocki said CBP could continue a structure that uses interlocal agreements
that individual jurisdictions are responsible for.
STC
members discussed what the Partnership would like to be able to do:
·
Continuity for implementation, long-term (50 years from now)
·
Independent and separate from member interests
·
Ability to acquire and manage funding (including the ability to
contract)
·
Legislative advocacy and education
·
Establish and maintain stable funding sources
·
Ability to accept private funds
·
Administrative functions/executive director, fiscal responsibility
·
“Conductor”
Mr.
Jarocki explained nonprofits are required to file reports with the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) and are able to lobby.
IRS determines the type of an organization when it applies for nonprofit
status. The next step is creating a list of organizational structures that enables
the Partnership to do the things identified previously. The exercise will show how efficient the
current structure is compared to other governance options.
Mr.
Swartout said if the Partnership chooses a nonprofit option, the current
organization could run parallel with a nonprofit.
Mr.
Jarocki said a goal is to create an organization that can receive as many
different funding sources as possible.
Another idea is identifying a legal status that supplements the existing
political operation. Retaining the
status quo could be a viable option recognizing another layer is needed to
advance the next step. He suggested
creating a matrix showing what the Partnership wants to do across the top with
organization structure types along the side and noting distinguishing
characteristics for evaluation purposes.
He stated he was disappointed he was unable to find watershed
organizational structures when he researched the subject in preparation for a
prior CBP meeting. Most watershed
management governance is comprised of stakeholder groups conducting activities
in an informal manner, such as, coordination and information sharing compared
to watershed plan implementation. He
said he did not contact each watershed organization separately and ask how they
are structured.
Mr.
Swartout said there are probably watershed activities conducted under a law
that doesn’t call it watershed planning, such as a flood control district.
Mr.
Jarocki suggested the Partnership could create a foundation solely for the
purpose of accepting private donations while retaining the current structure.
Mr.
Jennings said eventually the CBP might need to look at an organization with an
executive director whose job is to shepherd the Partnership and advance
implementation of the DIP. Currently,
the roles are shared among the jurisdictions.
Mr.
Swartout asked Ms. Napier her thoughts regarding the governance
discussion. Ms. Napier replied that members
are asking the right questions. She said
she’s not sure retaining the status quo option is adequate. A concern with creating another layer is the
ability for partners to implement the DIP.
The Partnership currently has an array of activities to manage and
implement. One entity or lead cannot do
it all. It’s important to get others
involved and bring those stakeholders to the table. Perhaps an emphasis should be placed on
outreach to educate other stakeholders about what they could bring to the
Partnership to advance the DIP.
Ms.
Willis said Partnership members are responsible to execute the DIP and not the
CBP.
Mr.
Jarocki asked why the CBP exists if it’s not responsible for
implementation. Ms. Napier said the
Partnership provides a forum to share information. She said because
Mr.
Swartout said
Mr.
Swartout said
Mr.
Jennings suggested that the concept of ownership is lost with hiring
consultants to advance the DIP. He said
he’s not sure contractors would have a vested interest in the watershed.
Mr.
Jarocki asked if the Partnership would divest itself of results gathered by
consultants. Implementation should be a
function of the CBP.
Ms.
Willis commented that identifying and maintaining sustainable funding is key to
implementing the plan.
Mr.
Swartout said it’s important to convey that an option is not to do away with
the Partnership. The struggle is moving
planning to implementation.
Ms.
Carnevali asked if the Partnership could now shift from planning and into
implementation.
Mr.
Jarocki distributed copies of a handout titled, “Tools for Implementation.”
Ms.
Napier said an exercise to prioritize objectives for implementation is
needed. Mr. Jarocki said a key is to
structure the organization that provides for an implementation mechanism.
Discussion
ensued about the role of the STC, engaging Partnership members in issue
discussions, base funding considerations, and implementation reporting. Mr. Swartout emphasized implementing tasks is
being done; however, it’s on a smaller, slower track. There is some impatience to build an
organization that can advance implementation quicker.
Mr.
Carnevali said Nisqually uses a map to identify priorities and to track
progress.
Mr.
Jarocki asked if the CBP would accept the idea that the STC operates as a board
of directors with executive and fiscal officers to ensure implementation, with
the Partnership providing oversight. Mr.
Swartout reminded members that the STC frames policy choice discussions for CBP
and is only an advisory body to the Partnership. He said if he was a watershed coordinator, he
would use the STC as it currently exists with the CBP providing policy
expertise.
Ms.
Carnevali commented that the information in the handout would be valuable to
the Partnership.
Most
members agreed a strategy is for the STC to present a governance structure list
of options to the Partnership for review and comment.
Mr.
Jarocki suggested members further evaluate the “what do you want to do” points,
flush out administrative and policy oversight responsibilities of each
governance structure as it relates to implementation, plug in the organization
types and characteristics, begin to distinguish differences between the
options, and identify gaps.
Discussion
followed about a format to present the information to the CPB in November, and
who could help populate the matrix. Mr.
Jarocki said he could build a spreadsheet, drop in organization
characteristics, and present a methodology to the Partnership. If the CBP decides that the concept is
reasonable, the Partnership could remand the matter to the STC for further
refinement. The STC could follow up with
a recommendation for the Partnership’s December meeting. The next step is to come up with a decision
model for the type of governance selected.
Another option is the CBP could hire a consultant to flush out the
options and build a spreadsheet if STC members do not have the time.
Mr.
Swartout said hiring a consultant is a realistic approach. He agreed with presenting a matrix to the
Partnership, discussing the STC’s process to review organizational governance,
and soliciting feedback from the CBP. A
consultant could lead the Partnership through a decision-making process and
drill further into each organizational type.
Mr.
Jennings suggested the ultimate goal is implementing the DIP. In terms of a presentation to the CBP, he
suggested initiating a discussion about governance structure options
deliberated by the STC and seeking Partnership feedback. The STC could then create a list of
organizations that could advance identified goals. The matrix could be a final slide of a
presentation. He volunteered to put
together a concise PowerPoint slide show for the CBP. Mr. Jarocki offered to assist Mr. Jennings.
Members
thanked Mr. Jarocki for his assistance.
Discussion
ensued about staffing changes at Department of Ecology (DOE) caused by
employees recently retiring.
Mr.
Jarocki said funds are available in his 2007 budget to work with the STC. If the CBP asks the STC to continue flushing
out governance structure options, he indicated he could help. It might not be necessary to hire a
consultant.
Discussion
followed on marketing strategies and opportunities. Mr. Jarocki suggested the STC invite Tim
Jones from the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds Division at EPA
Headquarters to a future meeting. Mr.
Jones heads up EPA’s sustainable finance team who reviews implementation issues
related to watersheds.
Chair
Swartout recessed meeting from
Mr.
Lien left the meeting during the break.
Hydrology 101
Nadine
Romero, Thurston County Hydrologist, provided the STC with a basic “Hydrology
101” presentation. Copies of an
information packet were distributed. She
reported 45% of
A
map illustrating the physiography (physical geography) of the upper and lower
US
Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauge facts (river miles, area in square miles,
elevation, monthly average flow, peak storm flow) at Ground Mound, Porter, and
Satsop were reviewed. Peak storm flows
(February 1996) were significant and vary between stream gauges (74,800 CFS
[Cubic Feet per Second] to 80,700 CFS).
Flows during August 2003 (158 CFS to 559 CFS) were at their lowest.
Ms.
Romero provided a LiDar map. Gauging
stations were noted with blue pins while green pins represent a geologic
cross-section from Tenino to
Discussion
followed about the Tenino sandstone slab.
Ms. Romero explained Tenino sandstone is fine and soft, which represents
a sea and beach environment (40 million years old).
Ms.
Romero reviewed provisional results of USGS’s recent seepage study. Results do not include CFS information but do
consist of gain and loss data. She used
two drawings to illustrate what gaining (water coming in from groundwater) and
losing (river loses water to the groundwater table) reaches look like. She noted USGS measured actual rivers and
tributaries coming into the main branch of the
Ms.
Carnevali asked what causes the river to lose flow. Ms. Romero said the bottom of the river
leaks, which is referred to as “river leakage.”
Mr.
Jennings said it would be interesting to plot elevation data at measurement
points.
Mr.
Swartout asked how thick the potential aquifer is within the basin. Ms. Romero referred members to the last page
of the handout containing a geologic cross section of Scatter Creek. Some of the wells are shallow that result in
unknown factors in river basin areas. Basalt
is only five feet below the other side of the
Discussion
followed regarding characteristics unique to Scatter Creek.
Members
thanked Ms. Romero for the presentation.
Members provided feedback on a potential presentation to the Partnership
on
·
Members preferred the display and handout format compared to a
PowerPoint slide show presentation
·
·
Allow more time during the presentation to explain hydrology concepts
·
It’s hard to visualize groundwater flow paths shown on the gaining
reach drawing; it might be better to explain that arc flow paths consist of
springs that pop up in the river bed from higher ground
·
Provide the Partnership with a range on how long it takes flows from
mountain tops to the river to affect flow patterns
·
Omit Table B from the presentation
Ms. Napier reported she received a telephone call from Karen Olsten, Quinault Indian Nation (QIN), in response to a request for information on reports Samuel Iwenofu referred to at the last STC meeting. Ms. Olsten conveyed that Joel Masman was hired by QIN to complete data collection work. Data gathering was conducted last spring. Results are under review by QIN policymakers. QIN would like to provide the STC with a presentation. She said she asked Ms. Olsten if Mr. Masman could attend the STC’s December (coincides with USGS attendance) or January meeting. Permission has been provided for Mr. Masman and Mr. Ely to share data set information.
Ms.
Carnevali left the meeting.
Legislative Outreach
Mr.
Swartout commented that the Thurston County BoCC expressed a preference for
receiving copies of a brochure on the Partnership rather than scheduling time
for a presentation.
Ms.
Napier said opportunities with the Coastal Caucus include a roundtable discussion
to raise awareness on issues. She indicated
it would be preferable to have the same opportunity with
Discussion followed on outreach messages consisting of an
update on the GIS Clearinghouse, other partnerships with
Mr. Swartout suggested asking Bonnie Canaday about designating a Partnership outreach person.
Mr.
Connelly said the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation could engage
with its lobbyist on local watershed issues.
Ms.
Willis said she plans to attend the Coastal Caucus meeting for legislators on
November CBP November
·
Officer nominations
·
Governance structure presentation
·
Hydrology 101 presentation (1.5 hours)
Agenda
topics for the STC’s December meeting include discussions with USGS on the
larger SOW, a presentation by QIN (tentative), and feedback from the
Partnership regarding governance.
Adjournment
With
no further business, Chair Swartout adjourned the meeting at
Prepared
by Cheri Lindgren, Recording Secretary