Spokane River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL Collaboration home > Public Process Description

Public Process Description

In late February, 2005, the City of Spokane, Spokane County and several other public and private entities with Spokane River discharge permits (the Petitioners) reached agreement with the Washington State Department of Ecology to tentatively withdraw their Petition for Rule Making concerning draft TMDL limits. Ecology agreed to suspend issuance of TMDL limits. Together, using information assembled for the draft TMDL and a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) prepared by the Petitions, the Petitioners and Ecology worked on a TMDL Implementation Plan for the Spokane River. This collaboration allowed productive discussion about the draft TMDL and the UAA in the context of planned future actions and the expected resulting improvements in river quality. The discussion is called the Spokane River TMDL Collaboration.

Issuance of TMDL limits has specific public involvement requirements which both the Petitioners and Ecology met. That process was temporarily “on hold” while the Petitioners and Ecology worked on a proposed Implementation Plan. Recommended TMDL changes were subject to the same public scrutiny and opportunities for input that were used in developing the draft TMDL. In particular, the TMDL Advisory Committee reviewed any modifications proposed for the draft TMDL. No part of the TMDL process was skipped.

Similarly, there are established processes for developing a Use Attainability Analysis and submitting a Petition for Rule-Making to adjust water quality standards for a specific water body. Those processes were followed by the Petitioners and they withdrew their petition as the deadline for an Ecology response approached. The petition was withdrawn without prejudice concerning its being filed again. All processes associated with issuance of a TMDL and a Petition for Rule Making were “on hold” while a proposed Implementation Plan was discussed.

Both Ecology and the Petitioners were very committed to open discussions during the “on hold” period as a proposed Implementation Plan was considered. The discussions occurred in two types of venues. The first, known as the Full Group, involved representatives of all Petitioners, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, the Washington Department of Ecology and others. This venue also served as the focal point for “government to government” level discussions with tribes. All Full Group meetings were publicized and open to public attendance. Every meeting included opportunities for public comment. The Full Group was where collective determinations were reached.

A second venue for conversation about the proposed Implementation Plan and related issues was the Workgroups. Several Workgroups functioned simultaneously to delve into the meaning and significance of data, develop improved understandings, answer specific questions, and prepare answers and recommendations for the Full Group.

Meetings of the Wastewater Flows and Loadings, Technology, Reuse and Conservation, and Non-Point Source Workgroups were publicized in advance. The public had opportunity to observe as a Workgroup dealt with topics. In the interest of efficiency, there was no public comment at these Workgroup meetings. Meeting notes were kept and made available to the public (see Historical Information Home Page for work group pages).

The Steering Workgroup was responsible for keeping the discussion process moving effectively and efficiently. The Steering Workgroup, led by facilitator Bill Ross of Ross and Associates, convened frequently, often by conference call. Notes were kept of all Steering Workgroup meetings and made available. The Steering Workgroup was responsible for making sure discussions move forward. Substantive Petitioner/Ecology determinations were only made in the Full Group in open session.

In summary:

• Changes in the draft TMDL resulting from the collaboration effort were subject to the same level of public review and comment used in developing the draft. The TMDL Advisory Committee reviewed any changes and the public process was completed.
• Determinations concerning the Petitioner/Ecology discussions were only made by the Full Group.
• All meetings of the Full Group were publicized, open for public observation, and included opportunity(ies) for public input.
• Workgroup meetings, while publicized and open for public observation, did not include opportunities for public comment.
• Workgroup sessions were documented with meeting notes that are posted on this website.

Last revision of Collaboration documents: June 3, 2005

Back to top of page