Rochester, Washington
July 25, 2008
9:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Meeting Summary
MEMBERS & ALTERNATES PRESENTBonnie Canaday, Chair, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Centralia Lee Napier, Grays Harbor County (Alternate) Lyle Hojem, Citizen, Lewis County Bob Beerbower, Grays Harbor County Mark Swartout, Thurston County (Alternate) Charles Caldwell, Port of Grays Harbor Robert Fink, Mason County (Alternate) Glen Connelly, Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation (Alternate) Phil Rupp, Lewis County (Alternate) |
Bob Macleod, Thurston County Terry Harris, City of Chehalis Kahle Jennings, City of Centralia Terry Willis, Citizen Grays Harbor County Ron Schillinger, City of Montesano Jim Hill, Citizen, Lewis County (Alternate) Chris Hempleman, Department of Ecology Chanele Holbrook-Shaw, Citizen, Thurston County
|
OTHERS PRESENTJanel Spaulding, Grays Harbor College Don Loft, The Evergreen State College Mike Kelly, Grays Harbor College John Penberth, Citizen, Pe Ell Patricia Olson, Department of Ecology Amy Kurtenbach, DNR Margaret Rader, Chehalis River Council |
Valerie Gow, Puget Sound Meeting Services Julie Dieu, Rayonier, Inc. Brett DeMond, LCD Consulting Julie Sackett, Department of Natural Resources Alec Sanders, Deltalok Lonnie Crumley, LCD Consulting Steve Willis, Citizen Dave Vasilauskas, City of Centralia |
Chair Bonnie Canaday called the Chehalis Basin Partnership (CBP) meeting to order at 9:33 a.m. Everyone present provided self-introductions.
The June 27, 2008 minutes were not available.
Hydrologic Characterizations After the Flood
Lee Napier reported the briefing is a continuing series of educational briefings on the December 2007 flood. The first presentation was presented to the Steering Technical Committee (STC) in January covering the hydrology "Hot Wash."
Ms. Napier introduced Dr. Patricia Olson, Shorelines and Environmental Assistance Program, Department of Ecology. Dr. Olson reported she is the program’s fresh water hydrologist and geomorphologist. She provided an overview on hydrologic characterizations after the flood.
The review covered travel time, precipitation, and the impact of debris. Dr. Olson reported she examined rain and discharge data for various locations along the basin. The data reveals impacts were experienced based on the precipitation pattern. Much rain fell in a short period of time. She reviewed travel time comparisons between 1996 and 2007, which reveals travel time in 2007 from the Doty gauge to Grand Mound of 25 hours. In 1996, it was 19 hours, reflecting a six-hour difference. In the 2007 flood, the Newaukum didn’t peak until eight hours after the Doty gauge peaked. When the peak at the Doty gauge occurred it likely hit the peak of the Newaukum causing much backwater. In 1996, the Newaukum peaked before the Doty gauge, which resulted in less backwater. The backwater effect could slow travel time. There were also many levee breaches which can slow travel time of water. They are just some of the things that could have happened. However, it’s unknown as no research has been undertaken. Whether the debris flow or the debris dams affected the time of travel is, at this point, speculative and until someone completes a study, it will remain speculative.
Dr. Olson said she concluded there was damning of water with either the water rerouting or bridges collapsing. The record doesn’t support a longer damning effect. It appears to be an effect of precipitation. Seven inches of rain fell over a 12-hour period in Wildwood. The impact of seven inches of rain to a confined area, such as the Doty gauge, equaled approximately 3,565 acre feet of water per hour flowing through the gauge. A stream velocity of 10 to 15 feet of water per second through the gauge will create a wall of water in constricted areas along the river. Most of the rainwater occurred in the headwaters and when that occurs there is a quick peak.
Dr. Olson cited time of travel in terms of the when the storm starts and peaks. There was 59 hours from the start of the storm to the peak for the 2007 event. Rainfall essentially stopped at the peak. In 1996, from the start of the storm to the peak, it was 100 hours because more consistent rainfall fell over the entire watershed.
Dr. Olson referred to the unusualness of the event. After contacting the Northwest Weather Service, officials indicated that in the upper watershed the storm was equivalent to a .2% probability of occurrence. The Northwest Weather Service indicated it will not pursue the analysis on the Francis and other gauges in the upper watershed because the data is not adequate. However, the Washington State Climate Office reviewed gauges to compare the 2007 storm to previous storms. In Centralia the river was not as high as in other floods, such as the 1990 flood. The period of a two-day return for the period of 1948 to 1976 is lower for all the gauge stations than the two- day return for the period 1977 to 2006. It may be indicative of more frequent, higher storms. A two-day return means that within two days at a two-year interval, the region would receive that high amount of rainfall.
Dr. Olson commented on whether there is a trend occurring of larger floods occurring more often or whether it’s just a perception. She reviewed the annual maximum peak charge at Grand Mound since 1929 to the last flood in 2007 and performed a statistical regression to determine if there is some relationship. She cautioned that the analysis is a coarse analysis and that a more accurate analysis requires more efforts and steps. There appears to be a slight upward trend, but the data shows more incidents of annual variability in high flows. An examination of the data in terms of decades appears stronger in the trends of rising water. There is also more variation occurring between high and low flows.
Terry Harris asked whether the analysis included a comparison against the annual rainfall. Dr. Olson indicated she didn’t consider rainfall in the analysis but would recommend such a comparison as part of a study of the storm event.
Dr. Olson said although she did not pursue climate analysis, she did examine changes in landscape. She referred to old government land surveys which established land boundaries and townships in 1856. The map reveals more wetlands on the landscape. In the 1940s, some forest harvest occurred in the watershed. Forest harvest also occurred in the 1990s as well as in 1996. The U.S. Geological Survey completed landcover change analysis and found in the upper Chehalis from 1990 to 2001, an 11% decrease in the forestry canopy with more than half of it occurring between 1996 and 2001.
Dr. Olson commented on how riparian buffers can protect land along the riverbed by reducing the degree of erosion along the stream bank.
John Penberth commented on the discovery of an ancient Indian Village in Centralia documenting the existence of floods over the last 10,000 years. The valley is natural fill for the river basin. Some complications are caused by man, such as the fill of wetlands contributing to flooding problems, but not all. He suggested the geography of the area will determine future events and that blame shouldn’t be placed on timber companies.
Jim Hill asked whether the calculations accounted for the rain on snow event. Dr. Olson confirmed those calculations were included. However, there are no definitive measurements of snow. She noted the National Weather Service performed some modeling on snowmelt.
At the request of Ms. Willis, Dr. Olson described the time analysis of the storm peak. From the start of the storm in 2007 to the peak at Grand Mound it was 59 hours. In the 1996 storm, from the start of the storm to the peak at Ground Mound it was 100 hours, which was caused by the precipitation pattern.
Chanele Holbrook-Shaw commented on the lack of flooding along the Skookumchuck River. Dr. Olson advised less rainfall occurred and the Skookumchuck River never exceeded the two-year flood. It also appeared that the dam was holding water.
Brett DeMond reported she spoke with a farmer who lives between Oakville and Porter who reported a one-foot wall of water coming through the valley during the storm.
Summary of the Postmortem Slope Stability Study within the Boistfort Valley
Dr. Olson introduced, Julie Dieu, Rayonier, Inc. Ms. Dieu’s presentation covered a study related to the Forests and Fish Rules. Both presentations related to the Partnership’s Watershed Plan implementation in terms of understanding hydraulics and the value of agriculture and forestry.
Ms. Dieu provided information on how research projects are conducted in the forest practices arena and why a study design has been approved to move forward. Ms. Dieu reported she is the co-chair of the Upslope Process and Scientific Advisory Group (UPSAG) comprised of geologists and hydrologists charged with developing study designs to better understand whether forest practices are effective in eliminating siltation into streams from roads or limiting landslides. Various Scientific Advisory Groups (SAGs) are under the umbrella of the Cooperative Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research (CMER) Committee, which reviews the results of the SAG’s work. When a study is completed by a SAG it’s forwarded to CMER for review and then undergoes a separate and independent academic peer review. Finally, the study is forwarded to the Forests and Fish Policy for approval to proceed for funding. The Forest Practices Board approves the expenditure for pursuing the study.
Ms. Dieu recognized co-authors Andy Hook, Tulalip Tribes; Greg Stewart, CMER Geomorphologist; Laura Vaugeois, DNR; Curt Veldhuisen, Skagit River System Cooperative; Janelle Black, CMER Hydrologist; and Technical Writer, Lynne Rodgers, MS Environmental Services. The study will be dedicated to Ms. Vaugeois, who died on April 30, 2008 after a brief illness.
Development of the study design began in November 2005. The study lingered outside the peer review process for a year. The original vision was to have contracts in place for aerial photography and a principal investigator with the study pending based on the advent of a storm occurring. However, final peer review comments were received on November 27, 2007 followed by the storm on December 3, 2007. A population of landslides existed for the study; however the contracts were not in place and the study design was not completed. The process was on track to develop a study design to evaluate the effectiveness of forest practices at limiting landslides well before the storm occurred. However, the caveat was that the design of the study was not intended for a peculiar storm or a set of landslides.
Forest Practices is pursuing specific mitigation measures to avoid accelerating rates and magnitudes of mass wasting, which could deliver sediment or debris to public resources, which includes water or the threat of public safety. There is recognition in the Forest Practices arena from scientists and the Board that landslides are a natural process. Forest practices are also acknowledged to accelerate rates of landsliding and the amount of the sediment in the stream. The goal is to manage those occurrences.
The study, designed at a high level, statistically compares Forest Practices effectiveness for five different harvest classes and five different road classes.
Ms. Dieu described elements of the study. Field sampling will include randomly selecting between 21 to 28 sample treatment blocks of 4 square miles to provide a sufficient number of landslides and representation strata to conduct a valid statistical analysis of the data. Each block includes a 12 square mile perimeter to ensure there are sufficient harvest and road classes. Each cluster is of sufficient size to ensure consistent typography and precipitation. The study will determine whether there are statistically significant differences in landslide numbers or initial volumes per unit area originating from the following timber harvest and road strata:
Harvest:
A. Clearcut: stand-age 20 years or less.
B. Partial Harvest: stand-age 20 years or less.
C. Buffered: stand-age 20 years or less.
D. Sub-mature: stand-age 21-40 years
E. Mature: stand-age 41+ years.
Road:
A. Substandard: Active roads not meeting FFR forest practices standards;
B. Orphaned: Unused for forest practices since 1974;
C. Standard: Active roads that meet FFR forest practices standards;
D. Mitigated: Active roads with completed instability hazard reduction efforts (drainage
and/or unstable material removal); and
E. Abandoned: Roads with extensive maintenance designed to best reduce all existing
environmental hazard (DNR-approved or equivalent).
Ms. Dieu described the fieldwork consisting of collecting basic site data and data related to potential triggering mechanism at each landslide mapped from aerial photos as well as any additional landslides observed from road and stream traverses. Landslide data will be normalized by harvest type area or by road length. She displayed and described a series of harvest and road strata photographs.
The storm requirement was a storm producing at least one landslide per square mile over 600 square miles of land subject to Forest Practices Rules.
Ms. Dieu described the statistical analysis and reporting elements of the study.
Amy Kurtenbach, Project Manager, DNR, referred to a document that will be mailed to landowners informing them of the study. One of the clusters is located in the Pe Ell area, which involves many small landowners with 40 acres of land in a timber class that will be included in the study. Those landowners are difficult to contact. She asked members who know of any landowners in the area to convey the importance of completing the study.
Currently, the status of the study includes work on aerial photographs. Over 5,000 aerial photographs were produced for the project. The study is seeking a consultant and efforts continue to initiate the study and complete the photos. The photos must be reviewed for landslides. A crew is working on photo interpretation and a field crew is in the field. The first cluster completed is located in the Grays Rivers area. Large corporate landowners have been very cooperative with the study and have provided access to properties. After field sampling is completed, the team will undertake some statistical analysis to determine how many clusters will be required based on the first six clusters. From there, the team will determine the number of additional clusters. Most of the fieldwork should be completed by October. At that point, the statistician and the consultant will use the information to begin development of a report. The report will be reviewed by UPSAG for approval for forwarding to CMER. CMER will review the study design and the report, provide comments, and forward to the University of Washington for a scientific peer review panel for comments that are incorporated into the study design. After the study design is approved by CMER, the Policy Board reviews it, which is then forwarded to the Forest Practices Board.
In February 2009, the study’s consultant is scheduled to speak at the CMER Science Presentation. Ms. Kurtenbach invited members to attend the presentation of all CMER projects. More information will be provided later.
Ms. Dieu reported 30,000 landslides have been inventoried over the last 60 years in western Washington, which has informed rural identified landforms. Within the upper Chehalis basin, DNR is indicating there are approximately 1,000 landslides in the worst 17 square miles. She noted a 50-year photo inventory reveals only one-fifth of that landslide rate in the worst of all storms. The storm produced five times the normal landslides experienced over the last 50 years. She described some of the unusual areas where landslides occurred. Some of the initial failure volumes appear to have exceeded 20,000 to 30,000 cubic yards of landslide debris.
Ms. Dieu responded to comments by Mr. Penberth concerning the natural occurrence of landslides over time and indicated there is no denial landslides are a natural part of the landscape. However, from a 60-year air photo history across much of the state, there was an understanding of where landslides occur. The message is that there is really an extra set of landslides that no one understands and could not have predicted. They seem to be related to the extremeness of the storm event and are located in an isolated area.
Mr. Penberth commented that the only reason to study the issue is for man’s intervention in the flow of the river. Ms. Dieu replied the intent of the study is to test the effectiveness of Forest Practices in limiting landslides.
Mr. Penberth said the Partnership has been involved in the placement of large culverts to relieve pressure and has spent funds on salmon habitat and restoration to help prevent future slides and other impacts that affect the river. He suggested the issue is a very small microcosm of what’s occurred in the last 10,000 years in the Chehalis basin.
Mr. Jennings asked for clarification on the definition of percentage of slope. He indicated a 100% slope represents a 45-degree angle. A 70% slope is something less than a 45-degree angle. Ms. Dieu said a 70% slope equates to approximately 36 degrees.
Ms. DeMond inquired about the ratio of landslides related to roads. Ms. Dieu said at this point, the ratio of road landslides is unknown. In the 30,000-landslide database, the ratio is 70% of landslides large enough to view are initiated from roads. She said she anticipates the ratio to be smaller for the December event.
Mr. Harris pointed out that during the previous meeting’s presentation; landslides were discovered on slopes of 15%. It appears that much time is spent analyzing an anomaly. Ms. Dieu replied that the applicability of adaptive management demands understanding whether forest practices had any input on some of the population of the debris avalanches. It may be that per acre, there are as many landslides in mature timber that occurred in clear-cuts and that forest practices appears to have had no impact.
Ms. Dieu displayed several photos of landslides.
Mr. Hojem commented on the cost of the study and asked who evaluates the dollar value of the study. He said he’s not concerned about landslides since they’ve occurred since the beginning of time. He questioned whether too much is spent for the value received. Ms. Dieu replied the funds are federal and state taxpayer funds. There has been a substantial amount of environmental pressure on the timber industry for decades and there has been agreement to increasingly more stringent rule packages through time. Currently, millions and millions of dollars of trees are preserved to protect water temperature, soil erosion, and prevention of landslides. The studies are to ascertain if those measures are effective in reducing water temperature and reducing siltation and landslide rates. Adaptive management works both ways – rules may become more stringent or rules may be relaxed. The debate has occurred at the UPSAG on whether studies are worth the dollars.
Ms. DeMond commented on the differences in floods between the 1996 flood and the 2007 flood. The 2007 flood carried substantial mud and wood debris and caused catastrophe damage to farms. There is value in attempting to reduce those losses.
Discussion ensued on landowner types within the study area, the possibility of earthquake tremors playing a role, and the validity of spending money studying natural occurrences. Members exchanged opinions on the value of the study versus the cost because of the geology of the area and acts of nature. Ron Schillinger expressed appreciation for receiving the information and shared his experience in managing the forests for the City of Montesano and his observations on the forest system from storm. The amount of rainfall has a direct bearing on the number of landslides. He cited the number of landslides occurring in areas where there has been no logging and impacts of standards on landowners, which is why the studies are needed to change the policies.
Chair Canaday expressed appreciation to the presenters for providing the information and reminded members the meeting was not the place to point fingers and raise accusations.
Ms. Napier reported the presentation is the last scheduled presentation regarding the flood. She invited members to provide feedback on possible future presentations or additional information concerning the flood for a future meeting. The Partnership will continue to receive regular updates on flood-related activities.
Report on the July 22, 2008 Tri-County Meeting
Ms. Napier reported the Flood Authority met on July 1, 2008 and selected a candidate to serve as the facilitator/coordinator for the flood project. The Authority selected ESA Adolphson, a company located in Olympia. The Steering Technical Committee for the Authority comprised of Mark Swartout, Lee Napier, Mark White, and Bob Johnston was directed to work with the consultant to develop a scope of work. The scope of work will include a phased approach and involves interviews by the consultant of individuals on their expectations of the Flood Authority as it moves forward towards the flood control project design.
The Tri-County met on July 22, 2008 as a follow-up meeting to the April 14, 2008 meeting to receive information from the Prosecuting Attorneys on the legalities of forming a Flood Control District. Lewis County Prosecutor Michael Golden presented an overview on the requirements to form a flood district. The Tri-County group agreed it’s not possible to place a ballot measure on the formation of a flood district and that additional work is required prior to any ballot measure. No date has been established for the ballot measure for the formation of a flood district.
Mr. Swartout reported on the possibility of legislative changes based on the discussion to include expansion of the flood district board to five members from three members and how votes are assigned to landowners. The allocation of votes is a law based in the 1930s and provides a landowner with a specific number of votes dependent on the amount of land owned. Members discussed pursuing the one vote option, which requires a legislative change. Ms. Napier said the third issue centered on the requirement of a simple majority to pass the formation of a flood control district. However, the statute is unclear if that applies across the boundaries of the district or only to one jurisdiction with a majority of voters. The Prosecuting Attorneys were asked to research the three questions by September 15, 2008.
Mr. Penberth cited RCW 85.05.270 giving rights and powers to flood districts to join in contracts with other dike or flood districts. The law is already on the books. The Tri-County group does not know current laws that they are working to change. He spoke against the group directing legal counsel to review and provide follow-up information and suggested the Partnership should concentrate its focus on the basin, water quality, and fish issues.
Ms. Napier reported on the recent Flood Authority meeting. Flood Authority members reviewed the scope of work for ESA Adolphson. The Flood Authority accepted the scope of work and the consultant is under contract. At the July 1 meeting, the Town of Oakville requested membership in the group. Another assignment from the July 1 meeting was for Lewis County to draft an amendment to the interlocal agreement for members of the Flood Authority to execute to include the Town of Oakville.
Phase 4 Year 3 Grant Contract
Ms. Napier reviewed the amendment to the DOE contract for the Phase 4 grant. Currently, the Partnership is in year three of the grant. The first phase included development of the Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP). Some projects have been implemented.
Ms. Napier reviewed Amendment No. 8 to Ecology Grant No. G0600069 and outlined the tasks, some of which are carryovers from the previous years as well as new tasks.
Ms. Napier began the review with Task 1 – Administration, which is service provided by Grays Harbor County to the Partnership to including reporting and contracting. Several tasks completed include:
Task 2: Contact Group A Water Systems – completed November 30, 2005
Task 3: Prepare a Detailed Implementation Plan – completed October 27, 2006
Task 2 involves project coordination consisting of overall project coordination and general staff support to the Partnership and its standing committee, to include meeting minutes.
Task 5 involves implementing and refining the Detailed Implementation Plan/Annual Work Plan to make the DIP a dynamic document reactive to both the present and future. The CBP will begin in fall 2008 with a biannual work plan update to include:
Task 6 involves outreach to the community regarding progress related to implementation of the Watershed Plan and DIP. The primary outreach medium is articles in the Drops of Water insert. At a minimum, this insert is delivered to all newspaper subscribers in the watershed. Tasks for 2009 include developing and distributing a survey to measure local citizen’s values and understanding of the watershed to determine where to target most outreach activities and what specific messages to send and work with the Citizen’s Advisory Committee. Develop outreach materials and newsletters for distribution to local community and media; begin writing a newsletter highlighting activities/studies in the basin; develop public service announcements highlighting CBP and ways people can get involved, and publish meeting notices/announcements in local newspapers and on website calendars.
Task 7 was completed and included working through a committee to implement tasks associated DIP Strategy #3 and Interim Milestone 3.1 – Clarifying Water Rights and Uses.
Ms. Willis asked about the status of participation by the Agriculture representative. Ms. Napier advised that she will revisit the list and update it.
Mr. Penberth commented that citizen outreach by the Partnership has been a failure in his opinion. Citizens are supposed to be a part of the Partnership and lead the effort. He noted outreach to citizens has not been effective. He suggested that if the Partnership can demonstrate to citizens how they can be an integral part of the group, then citizens will attend.
Ms. Willis introduced a new citizen to the group, Steve Willis, a Grays Harbor farmer.
Mr. Penberth referred to Centralia’s testing of stormwater catch basin technology. Centralia should be complimented for taking the first step in stormwater management. The state hasn’t forced the issue of stormwater management but government entities are putting pressure on communities to manage stormwater. He suggested members of lead agencies and governments should start the process of stormwater management because those leading the effort will have access to funding. The issue was presented to the Partnership as an active topic approximately 10 years ago.
Chair Canaday suggested contacting staff at Centralia to arrange a presentation on the City’s stormwater efforts to the Partnership.
Mr. Schillinger invited and challenged the City of Centralia to provide a sample of its water during the Watershed Festival as part of the water taste test contest.
Ms. Holbrook-Shaw provided an update on the Watershed Festival. The committee recently met and reviewed festival events to include the water taste test. Vendor participation is being expanded for this year’s event. She invited members to contact local artists for possible participation. A Farm Tour is scheduled on September 27. Both tall ships should be in port during the festival. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation is hosting the salmon bake. Additional activities for children are planned. The festival is on Saturday, September 27, 2008.
Ms. Spaulding provided updated information on activities planned during the week prior to the festival during “Watershed Awareness Week” in the upper Chehalis basin.
Ms. Holbrook-Shaw described the challenges associated with moving the festival between locations and the importance of establishing the watershed festival prior to changing the venue. The fish pond will be sponsored again this year. The fish will be cleaned by volunteers sponsored by Grays Harbor College.
Mr. Schillinger commented on the importance of the Drops of Water publication in promoting public outreach and Kathy Jacobson’s role in coordinating the Watershed Festival. During the Watershed Awareness Week, “Fin” will be visiting elementary schools in Aberdeen, Montesano, and Cosmopolis.
Mr. Jennings offered a proposal to members of municipalities and local governments to work jointly on sponsoring an issue of Drops of Water highlighting each community’s efforts. Ms. Napier noted the Partnership sponsors one issue annually. Ms. Rader said she relies on agencies and groups for contributing articles. She said is working towards producing theme editions and welcomed Mr. Jennings offer to publish an edition.
Next Meeting
Ms. Napier reported she is unable to attend the August 22, 2008 meeting because of vacation. She has asked Nancy Allison who is the Executive Director for the Washington Coast Sustainable Salmon Partnership to attend. Ms. Allison will present the lead entity list on Ms. Napier’s behalf as well as providing an overview of the Washington Coast Sustainable Salmon Partnership. During the August meeting, the STC will continue the discussion on the work plan. Mr. Spaulding will provide an update.
Additionally, the agenda includes an update on the Watershed Festival.
Members will also receive the ranked list of the Habitat Work Group’s projects funded through the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. Mr. Jennings suggested it might be timely to provide an overview of all the habitat projects that have been completed as well as a status update on fish stocks. Ms. Napier said she will follow-up with the Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) as Chad Stussy has accepted another position and is leaving WDFW at the end of August to work for North Thurston High School.
Mr. Hill asked to include a short report on the status of low flow conditions and if there have been any restrictions on water usage pertaining to interruptible water rights.
Steve Willis commented on the issue of interruptible water rights and suggested farmers should be able to water crops. The water rights issue is hurting farmers.
Commissioner Macleod asked if there is any anticipation of funding competition from the Puget Sound Partnership because of the similar focus of projects. Chris Hempleman said she can’t speak to Puget Sound Partnership’s work but that the state budget is not in good shape. Ms. Napier and Mr. Swartout have met with her and budget staff to begin developing a preliminary budget for watershed needs to take to the Legislature to show the need for watershed planning and how some of the watersheds can coordinate legislative outreach for the work to be undertaken.
Mr. Swartout provided additional information on the meeting and indicated DOE is competing among all state agencies for limited funds. Two years ago, Commissioners Beerbower and Macleod, Ms. Napier and he met with legislative representatives to seek funding for implementing the DIP. There were specific actions for a specific amount of funds. However, DOE was also seeking funding for watershed planning and other activities. In the end, the Partnership received funding but DOE’s funding request was reduced by that amount. This year, the intent is to avoid a similar occurrence which is why a meeting was held with DOE staff. It was agreed to meet with legislative representatives at the end of the year and promote funding for DOE’s entire funding package with the hope other planning groups will meet with their respective legislators and promote DOE’s package, which will convey a united front for funding statewide watershed needs.
Mr. Jennings said approximately $9 million of the $15 million appropriated for stormwater during the biennium was dedicated for Puget Sound. The City of Centralia competed for approximately $2 to $3 million. There is much political pressure to fund Puget Sound projects. The Partnership might want to consider how it represents southwest Washington. He said he is a member of DOE’s Funding Advisory Council as a representative for small communities in southwest Washington.
Ms. Hempleman advised that in addition to the Puget Sound Initiative there is an initiative pertaining to the Columbia River.
Mr. Schillinger inquired about the timing for an update by Mr. Loft on the water quality monitoring program. Ms. Napier advised she will be working with him on scheduling an update likely at the September or October meeting. It will be timely for the pending legislative meetings to refresh the Partnership on accomplishments to date.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Penberth complained about the unavailability of the June minutes.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Canaday adjourned the meeting at 12:15 p.m.
Prepared by Valerie Gow, Recording Secretary/President
Puget Sound Meeting Services