Hangman (Latah) Creek Watershed

Planning Unit Meeting

Spokane County Conservation District

January 5, 2005

Chair:              Walt Edelen, Spokane County Conservation District (SCCD)

Present:          Keith Holliday, Department of Ecology

Dee Bailey, Coeur d’Alene Tribe

                        Bruce Carmack, Landowner

                        Bill Rickard, City of Spokane, Environmental Programs

            Shallan Dawson, Spokane County Conservation District

            Reanette Boese, Spokane County

            Rick Noll, Spokane County Conservation District

AGENDA

The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m. The minutes from the November 8^th meeting and the December 28^th meeting were distributed for approval. The November minutes were approved by consensus. Bill asked for more time to review the minutes from the December meeting.

Walt discussed the plan for discussing water rights issues with Tekoa Golf Course. The decision at the November meeting was to draft a letter from the planning group to the Golf Course asking about their proof of a water right. Walt has discussed this action with Keith and they have decided to put off writing a letter and to possibly attend one of their meetings to start the dialogue with them about the water right. Bill pointed out that this might be the best time of year for them to address the issue, as they will be using the water in the spring and summer months.

Walt provided copies of the Guidance Document for Setting Instream Flows and Allocating Water for Future Out of Stream Uses, as discussed at the last meeting.

Priority Ranking

The planning unit began reviewing and discussing the ranking matrix. The document compared the public inmput to the planning units average priority ranking. Each of the recommendations and strategies were discussed and given a final ranking. The issues will be prioritized at the next meeting.

There was an addition to the no-till demonstration project under strategy seven. The wording was changed to include “funding identified” at the end of the sentence.

Recommendation 8b was eliminated from the table.

The abbreviation SC is listed throughout the document and the explanation needs to be added at the end of the table.

Response to Comments

The planning unit continued reviewing and discussing the comments from the public meetings and those submitted by various entities during the comment period. Comments were either noted, or changed. The group started with comment #34 and continued through comment #59. The following comments required changes.

Comment #37

There seems to be a difference in terminology from “non-municipal” to “systems who are not municipal water suppliers”. The change will be made in the report.

Comment #39

There were no changes to this comment at this time, although Keith will research the possibility of an “FTE” for this action. The group will consider what they foresee as the roles and duties for this position.

Comment #41

The words “if necessary” will be added to this recommendation.

Comment #51

Recommendation R11.e does not specify the agency responsible for implementing this program. The wording will be revised to be more specific.

Comment #59

The word “entity” will be changed to “agency” in R13.b.

Next Meeting

The next meeting will be January 19th from 9-12 am. The main agenda item will be to continue reviewing comments from the public comment period and the public meetings.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.