Agenda:
August 5, 2009
POWDER BASIN WATERSHED COUNCIL
Regular Monthly Meeting @ 5:30 p.m.
Baker City School District 5J (2090 Fourth Street)

AGENDA

5:30 Call to Order
Recognition of Guests / Commissioners Comment / Unscheduled Public Input
Approval of Minutes: 07/08/09


INSTREAM PERMITTING PANEL DISCUSSION

5:40 Panel Introductions – Jim Young
5:55 Panel Discussion, Q&A Session [INFORMATION, DISCUSSION]
See agenda and talking points for Panel Discussion
Presenters:
Gary Miller, Field Supervisor, La Grande Field Offic, – US Fish & Wildlife Service
Bethany Harrington, SE OR Resource Coordinator – OR Department of State Lands
Tonya Dombrowski, Grande Ronde Basin Coordinator – OR Department of Environmental Quality
Brett Moore, Project Engineer – Anderson Perry & Associates



GENERAL BUSINESS

6:45 NRAC Update, watershed section – Steve Edwards (10 minutes)

6:55 Boulder Creek Update – Tim Bliss (5 minutes)

7:00 Watershed Status Reports (If time allows)

7:00 PBWC Board of Directors Report - [INFORMATION, DISCUSSION, DECISION]
• Treasurer’s report
• Budget Report
• Baker Fair – outreach


7:30 Adjourn



POWDER BASIN WATERSHED COUNCIL
AUGUST 2009 MEETING AGENDA
TALKING POINTS FOR THE INSTREAM WORK PERMITS ISSUE

Jim Young will moderate a panel discussion of this topic. Fifteen minutes will be allowed for introduction of panel members and a discussion of the background. Fifteen minutes will be spent on each talking point. The objective of this discussion is to help the Watershed Council develop an action plan to present to the Baker County Commissioners and other political representatives. This action plan is intended to improve the permitting process through political action.

Background:
The Network of Oregon Watershed Councils-Project Management Training has a very comprehensive outline for acquiring the necessary permits. It outlines the various permits and a process to use in applying for permits. A copy of the NOWC paper will be sent to each panelist and will be used as a reference. The following information on the required permits is from that outline.

State: ODSL Removal-Fill permit, DEQ-401 water quality certification, DEQ-1200-C Construction Stormwater Permit, ODFW-Inwater timing guidelines and site dewatering, OPRD-archeological review and scenic waterway notification.

Federal: USACE-Section 404 removal/fill joint permit with the State designating the project either under a Nationwide permit or an Individual permit, Section 10 permit for navigable waters, Biological Assessment for consultation with NOAA or USFWS about endangered species, Environmental Assessment for NEPA compliance.

Point 1: The cost of complying with the permitting process can be more than the cost of the project. (ex. Pine Creek small grants project). Would it be possible to design the process to bring the cost in line with the size (cost) of the project?

Point 2: The time (6 months to several years) it takes to get a permit discourages restoration projects and increases implementation costs. The agency permit guidelines recommend allowing 6-12 months for the process. NOWC recommends starting at the 30% design stage with early informal contacts with agencies. Delays are almost inevitable. (ex. Pine Creek small grants missed the instream work window because of the unforeseen requirement for an archeological survey.) What changes could be made to the process to reduce the time it takes to get a permit? Would it be more efficient to have a general permit for a watershed action plan? (ex: A suggested outcome of the Pine Creek Technical Assistance grant)

Point 3: Some activity within streams and wetlands that require a permit occurs without one. (ex: pushup dams for water diversions, riprap placed by streamside homeowners, channeling and rerouting small streams, filling of streamside wetlands, diverting stormwater runoff and contaminated sediment into streams.) How should the public be educated about the need for permits and what are the legal consequences of noncompliance? What do the agencies do for enforcement?