WRIA 56 Hangman (Latah) Creek Watershed Planning Unit Meeting Spokane County Conservation District Chair: Walt Edelen, Spokane County Conservation District (SCCD) Present: Keith Holliday, Department of Ecology Bill Rickard, City of Spokane, Environmental Programs Rob Lindsay, Spokane County Bruce Carmack, Landowner Dee Bailey, CDA Tribe Steve Bortfeld, Hangman Hills Water District Peter Grunte, Landowner Rick Noll, SCCD AGENDA/Minutes: The meeting was called to order at 10:10 a.m. The minutes for November 10, 2005 were reviewed. The minutes were approved with no changes. Public Comments: Bruce Carmack opened a discussion related to the latest Attorney General’s opinion regarding the 5000-gallon a day exemption pertaining to domestic exempt wells. The AG’s interpretation is that there is a limit on domestic exempt well use for homes, but not for livestock use. Discussion ensued regarding the subject. Keith Holliday explained that there may be litigation involved to rectify this language and that new legislation may result in the future. Walt announced that WDFW and Randy James (North Central High School) have completed their red band trout genetic studies and have reports available. In general, the reports indicate that California Creek and other Hangman Creek tributaries possess isolated populations of interior red band trout. These genetic strains are considered to be valuable assets in the watershed. Walt will send copies of the reports to the interested planning unit members. Consultant Selection: Five consultant proposals were submitted in response to the RFP in the newspapers. The consultants included; Studio Cascade, Sound Resolutions, Golder Associates, Entrix, and EES Consulting. The review committee will rank the proposals and meet next week to discuss who should be interviewed and justify their rankings. The top two or three will be selected for interviews. Walt will discuss the selection criteria with the SCCD operations manager and email the planning unit on the results. Standardized selection criteria may be the best route. Rob Lindsay expressed that standardized criteria for ranking the final interview candidates is appropriate. Bill Rickard stated that selection criteria didn’t matter. Walt asked that the selection committee rank the consultants by next Wednesday (21st). Standardized selection criteria may be emailed if deemed appropriate. Keith Holliday stated that other planning units were struggling with consultant selection for facilitation services. The planning units tend to try to maintain the services of their technical consultants from previous work. These planning units often think that this will provide better continuity. Keith cautioned the planning unit to choose carefully. DIP work is new territory and there are not any good templates to follow. The Hangman Planning Unit is on the forefront of watershed planning. Phase IV Grant Application Walt discussed the grant application and scope of work. The planning unit is ready to submit the application to Ecology. Walt will fill in the budget portion and email it to the group. Discussion ensued regarding the timing of the application, consultant services, funding, timelines, and the completion of the MOA. Keith Holliday stated that the planning unit can submit the application and it will be an amendment to the existing base grant. The “clock” will not start ticking until the first voucher is submitted for payment. Essentially, we can prepare the contract and complete the MOA before we request the services of the consultant. It is important that we wait until everything is in place before tackling the DIP. Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) – Phase IV Bill Rickard has been working on the MOA and has done a great job. The planning unit appreciates his efforts, regarding this document. Bill has completed 12 iterations of the document and has the preliminary approval of the City and County’s legal advisors. It is now time to present the MOA for additional review by the planning unit representative’s and their immediate supervisors. The schedule for review is as follows: Staff Review: December 14th, 2005 – January 13th, 2006. Planning Unit representatives should allow appropriate review by their fellow staff and/or supervisors. Please submit comments to Walt and he will forward them to the planning unit and Bill Rickard. Comment Compilation Period: January 16th – January 20th, 2006. The SCCD will compile comments and submit them back to the planning unit. The SCCD will present the comments at the next appropriate WRIA meeting. Legal Review: January 23, 2006 – February 3rd, 2006. Any planning unit representatives that require legal review should present the MOA for internal legal reviews. Final MOA Approval and Signatures: This will depend upon state of MOA and relative comments. A new timeline may be in order. Storage Proposals Keith Holliday reported that the SCCD proposal regarding the direct seed pilot program has not received strong report from Olympia. The staff did not understand the implications of direct seed on water quantity and storage. Keith does not believe that this proposal will be funded at this time. He stated that more education is needed. The Tekoa project was recommended as the # 1 project for funding. However, Olympia stated that there is no reason to fund it. Keith will be attending a meeting in Lacey tomorrow to discuss these projects. Feasibility Study Bill Rickard commented that the City of Spokane is working with the Department of Ecology to fund an $80,000 feasibility study regarding the formation of irrigation districts and a water reuse utility. The City is working out the contract details and the project should be underway within the next couple of months. A consultant would be hired to conduct the study, which should be completed by the end of 2007. This project may have an impact on WRIA 56. NEXT MEETING The next meeting was scheduled for January 19, 2006 from 10:00 to 12:00 pm at the SCCD conference room. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 pm.December 14, 2005