Meeting Summary
MEMBERS PRESENT:
|
|
|
David Jarzynka, Briggs
Nursery |
Janel Spaulding, |
|
Lee Napier, |
Don Loft, The Evergreen |
|
Patrick Wiltzius, City of |
Valerie Gow, |
|
Ron Schillinger, City of |
Samuel Iwenofu, Quinault
Indian Nation |
|
|
|
Janel
Spaulding called the Chehalis Basin Partnership (CBP) Water Quality Committee (WQC)
meeting to order at
Approval of
The
minutes of
Presentation of GIS Map of
Water Quality Monitoring Sites
Don
Loft displayed a map of the water quality testing sites in the
Samuel Iwenofu arrived at
Mr.
Loft reported data from DNR includes dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform,
temperature, turbidity, and pH. DNR
conducts sampling from designated sites in the basin as well as water samples
the department routinely collects.
Mr.
Loft said that by using tables and queries, he was able to extract the percent
of time the sites of samples were in violation of water quality standards and
the range of severity:
·
0% - 5% very seldom in violation
·
5% - 15% some violations occurring
·
15% - 25% more frequent violations
·
25% severe violations
Mr.
Loft explained how an icon or target was created within the geodatabase and placed
on the map for locating the sample sites with each testing parameter overlaid on
the sampling area. Testing is occurring
within the subbasins of the Chehalis basin.
The samplings for testing parameters are averaged to show the compliance
of the site based on the average of five samples. The map can show streams at most risk based
on sampling results.
Mr.
Loft said he first began working in the Skookumchuck basin and used a set of
GIS hydrology tools that defines everything flowing to a point. He displayed a map of a data elevation model that
includes information in the form of pixels supplying elevation information. From that file, Mr. Loft said he is able to
extract flow data. With the hydrology
tools he is able to define different sections of land flowing to different
points. Most of flow patterns within the
Skookumchuck basin were defined to show what is influencing the sampling
sites. He noted he undertook a similar
exercise in the
Mr.
Loft said he identified some degraded sampling sites within the
Mr.
Loft said the next areas of testing include the
Mr.
Schillinger asked whether water temperature was one of the problems. Mr. Loft said temperature is one of the
issues. Mr. Schillinger shared
information on his experience in forestry management and suggested water
quality standards for temperature may be set too low. In some areas, water temperature is expected
to be lower than what natural condition can create. There are concerns that the state standard is
not attainable. Mr. Loft acknowledged
the possibility. In most areas of the
Chehalis basin, pH is out of the normal range.
Ms.
Napier referred to “hot spot” concerns mentioned during the previous
meeting Monitoring was conducted
approximately six years ago by the Grays Harbor Conservation District along the
Satsop River. The sampling was analyzed
and a report was produced by a consultant, which revealed that fecal coliform
didn’t appear to be a problem. She
suggested it might be helpful for the committee to understand how that
information will be used in conjunction with the water quality sampling
program.
Mr.
Loft advised that by the end of summer he plans to define all flow basins
within the Chehalis basin.
Mr.
Wiltzius suggested another layer could be
a time-based layer, such as dividing data prior to and after 2005. Mr. Loft acknowledged that there are
considerable amounts of data and that he is looking into temporal
analysis. Data from the Water Quality
Monitoring Program is at this point from one source. However, there are data from numerous sources
such as schools, local agencies, state agencies, and other organizations. Eventually all data will be included. However, all data will be identified
separately as data collections are different and some sampling consistency
could be questioned. Ideally, the goal
is to standardize data and how samples are collected. Mr. Loft acknowledged his work is just the beginning
of the data collection process and will be fine-tuned as work proceeds
Mr. Schillinger questioned
the goals of the program. Mr. Loft
replied that his goal is to work to ensure the ecosystem is balanced. The overriding concern is addressing
problems. The program is determining
water quality issues and whether there are opportunities to pursue restoration
projects to improve water quality. The
testing program is funded through a legislative appropriation administered
through the Department of Ecology. He
shared his educational background and his goal to obtain a masters degree.
Mr. Schillinger said one of
the things that the Partnership has struggled with is the enormity of the water
quality issue. The Partnership agreed to
focus work at the subbasin level. He
questioned the goal of undertaking work in each of the subbasins when in
reality there is limited time and resources.
Discussion followed on the
importance of consistent sampling to ensure uniformity. Mr. Loft said at this time, the project
includes taking data produced from different sources and representing it
graphically. It’s an issue that needs to
be resolved. Mr. Loft cited the
probability of obtaining funds to continue water quality sampling to isolate
and determine what’s contributing to the problems in specific subbasins.
Mr. Loft referred to a map of
sampling sites showing different colors representing the average of the five
sampling parameters. Currently, there
are 80 monitoring sites. Testing has
been underway since the fall of 2006.
Mr. Loft responded to questions regarding the samplings. He noted the samples are counted that are in
violation and then averaged to reflect the percent of time water is in
violation of the standard. A temporal analysis will be able to show a
month-to-month or year-by-year analysis of water quality. That effort will take more work. Currently, all data are funneled through the
database to show the percent of time water samples are in or out of compliance
with water quality standards.
Discussion followed on the
pros and cons of clear cutting, restoration efforts by timber companies, and
tracking water quality results in areas of restoration projects.
Ms. Napier commented on the
work by the Habitat Work Group and members working with Mr. Loft on tracking
restoration projects. Mr. Loft indicated
some of the restoration projects have been identified and are included in the
database. At this point, he said he is
collecting data and organizing the data to represent the data on an interactive
map. Ms. Napier asked about the timing associated
with the completion of the habitat project map.
She asked for a map of habitat projects that have been completed, are in
process, and how proposed projects interact and relate. She suggested meeting with the Habitat Work
Group to work on the map.
Mr. Loft offered to provide a
quarterly update to the committee.
Mr. Schillinger inquired
about the status of replacing Randy Lehr.
Ms. Spaulding reported six applicants applied for the position. Interviews are scheduled at the end of July. Mr. Schillinger expressed interest in serving
on the interview panel.
Mr. Schillinger inquired
about Mr. Loft’s availability on
Discussion of Department of Ecology’s Centennial Gran
Program and Potential Projects in the Basin
Ms. Spaulding provided a
handout of information on water quality grants and loans. Dave Rountry, DOE, electronically e-mailed
information to members as well. A
preapplication workshop is scheduled on August 5 &6, 2008 in Lacey. Contact information for the workshop is Tami
Riddell at 360-407-6295. The application workshop is September 3 & 4, 2008.
The application period is open from
Ms. Napier said the Water
Quality Committee has not sponsored applications, but has ranked
applications. Watershed groups no longer
have to rank projects. However, the
committee has provided feedback on proposed projects. She suggested the committee could invite
Ms. Spaulding offered the
suggestion of creating a stream team to work on restoration projects by
reviewing Mr. Loft’s work to determine a site and involving different groups
within the basin.
Mr. Loft suggested it would
be useful for the team to visit Paul Simmon’s lab to learn some of the
techniques he has employed to resolve some of the problems. He also has a system for extracting diesel
and oil from soil. He offered to provide
additional information on the location of the lab.
Mr. Schillinger referred to a
list of suggested projects on ongoing and emerging issues that drive
Mr. Wiltzius suggested that
prior to funding a stream team, the committee could submit a funding
application to have a consultant analyze the data, such as an engineering
company to analyze the project and prepare a report identifying hot spots. During the next funding cycle, the committee
could submit a funding application for the stream team to begin initial
investigations of those sites.
Ms. Napier questioned whether
the funding source will fund data analysis as it appears the funding is
directed more to on-the-ground projects. Mr. Wiltzius commented that the
Partnership has a good tool that should be analyzed. The report would identify hot spots.
Ms. Spaulding reported Dave
Rountry had conveyed that a corrective action element is likely necessary to help
the competitiveness of the proposal. She
said that’s why she suggested a stream team or coordinating with the
conservation districts, river councils, and fisheries task force. Ms. Napier suggested reviewing the ideas with
Mr. Rountry as well as Mr. Wiltzius’ suggestion.
Ms. Spaulding asked Mr. Loft
about the possibility of undertaking some hot spot analysis in GIS with
existing data to determine hot spot locations.
Mr. Loft said his work is headed in that general direction and the next
layer of data is parcel data in terms of land use in the areas.
Ms. Spaulding reported on her
goal of developing a Chehalis basin stream team at the subbasin level because
of the size of the basin. It will take
initial community involvement by different cities and towns. Stream teams are comprised of volunteers who
conduct water quality monitoring and sampling, restoration projects, and work
on storm drains and buffers.
Ms. Napier referred to Mr.
Rountry’s September workshop on the TMDL implementation. She offered that it might be another approach
to review the TMDL table implementation and select an area for a restoration
project utilizing the notion of a stream team.
Mr. Wiltzius agreed that the option might have a better chance of
obtaining funds. It’s doubtful funding would
be approved unless an on-the-ground project is submitted. Submitting another idea that is different for
a potential grant would likely not be successful. Ms. Napier suggested working with Mr. Rountry
on potential TMDL projects as well as working with Chris Hempleman, who could
help flush out the details of the project.
Members supported the
suggestions and acknowledged the work involved in submitting a project
proposal.
Members discussed the
difficulty of obtaining funding for projects.
Mr. Iwenofu reported the
Quinault Indian Tribe is also interested in applying for the grants.
Water Quality Committee’s Role on the Draft Letter to
Mr. Wiltzius said he was
somewhat frustrated at the outcome of the discussion at the Partnership meeting
on the letter drafted by the Water Quality Committee responding to the draft
Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). He said
he spoke with the Chehalis representative about his concerns after the meeting. The Partnership was developed in some aspect
to participate in water quantity, quality, and habitat issues within the
basin. By participating in the review of
the Critical Areas Ordinance, it demonstrated that the Partnership took an
interest and the time to review the document.
He said he could understand if the letter recommended policy changes but
the focus of the letter was on some discrepancies. He questioned the role of the committee. The Partnership has previously sent numerous
support letters on different topics within different areas of the basin. However, the Partnership indicated since the
CAO pertains to
Mr. Schillinger commented
that there is still an individual ability of each member representing a city,
county or organization to provide comments.
Mr. Wiltzius agreed but noted the City of
Ms. Napier said the
Partnership’s position is that it serves as a forum only. She indicated that the goal of the letter in
responding to the draft CAO was raising awareness, reminding the county of the
Partnership, and when developing land use rules and regulations, the county
needs to include watershed guidance. By
not sending the letter, that message was not delivered. She said she will address the issue with the
Steering Technical Committee (STC).
Additionally, the message the Partnership seemed to convey was that the
CAO does not relate to water quality issues.
She noted that Terry Willis submitted a letter using the language
contained in the letter.
Members discussed other
Members discussed the
relationship between county and city CAOs and the importance of reviewing CAOs
and similar documents for smaller entities that don’t have the expertise
in-house.
Next Meeting
The
next meeting will include discussion on the Centennial grant pending further
discussion between Ms. Spaulding and Mr. Rountry.
Mr. Wiltzius offered to
provide a presentation on the City of
Mr. Schillinger requested a
briefing from the City of
With
there being no further business, Ms. Spaulding adjourned the meeting at
Prepared
by: Valerie Gow, Recording Secretary/President