The meeting was called to order at 10:05am and began with introductions. 

Minutes

The minutes from the December 16, 2003 meeting had been distributed prior to today’s meeting.  Walt asked for any comments, addition, deletions, etc.   No changes were noted and minutes were approved for December 16, 2003 without changes.

Open Discussion/Public Comment

Update on potential meeting in February with the Health department on HB1338.  Bryony explained that the WRIA 62 group has asked Deana to come and speak but they haven’t had any confirmation yet and she will check on the status and get back to the Planning Unit.

Department of Ecology has a Water Quality Assessment meeting on February 3, 2004 at SFCC.  Walt explained that they will be reviewing, and accepting input & comments on their proposed impaired water bodies.  This will include the Spokane Water Quality Management area with their new listing process with the 303(d) List process. This information is out on Ecology’s website and Walt encouraged the Planning Unit to take a look at it.  If anyone is interested in providing comments they can attend the meeting on February 3^rd.

Elaine explained that this listing has been broken into 5 categories.   Category 5 is the 303(d) list, categories 1-4 may mean that the water body might have something wrong with it but unless the water body is a category 5, it is not on the 303(d) list.

BUSINESS

Water Quality Contract Progress

Rick reported on the current status on the Water Quality sampling that has been done to this point.  Two sample rounds have been completed (one was on the day at 22⁰ below zero).  We have not had any problems to date.

Walt stated that the SCCD and Ecology are working on developing the contract for the TMDL work on Hangman Creek.  One of the first tasks is coordinating meetings and inviting stakeholders.  We will begin this process in February.  Notices will be sent out to everyone and invited to participate in the workgroup.  The first meeting will be in March.

Storage Proposal Status

Walt reported that the application has been signed and submitted to Ecology.  We should find out soon from the Department of Ecology whether it has final approved.

Watershed Issues/Recommendations

Water Quantity

            Water Conservation, Reclamation, and Reuse

Walt asked for any new recommendations.  The Planning Unit made the following additions and changes:

1.      Gary Ostheller asked about adding Storm Water under (c).  There was a discussion and it was decided to ADD Storm Water under 2 sections:

·        Water Quantity section F and

·        Water Quality section 2

2.      Item (n), All new water rights should include water conservation measures.

Steve thought we should ADD the verbiage--”That is not otherwise addressed by Department of Ecology and Department of Health rules and regulations.”

3.      COMBINE d,e,g,h,i and ADD statement similar to (f) 1 recommendation…”Apply for optional element funding to study potential storage opportunities.”  ADD “education” to statement.

Some of the Planning Unit members were concerned about the “teeth” of the plan and whether we are encouraging or requiring actions.  The Planning Unit discussed how some recommendations must encourage action and how others require actions.  Education was deemed an important aspect of all recommendations.  Walt asked Planning Unit members what their thoughts are about using “require, encourage, or educate”.

Steve Bortfeld – would recommend the consideration that we make it required

Mike Barber – Educate and inform

Bill Rickard - no comment

Gary Ostheller – Educate and inform

Reanette Boese – Like to see something about Education along with some kind of economic incentive for putting in conservation methods.

Byrony Stasney – same as Reanette’s statement

Tracy Rehwald – can’t see how we can make it a requirement.  Also thinks that it would need some kind of economic incentive.

Elaine Snouwart - likes adding the word education

4.      Add recommendation –

            (o) Develop education program

5.   d) Groundwater/Surface Water Interactions

There was some discussion regarding using a dedicated well for testing.  Recommendation to ADD a monitoring station near WRIA edge (Tekoa and Spangle could be utilizing water outside of the WRIA).

6.      c)  Reanette said that the wording needs to be “ask the Department of Ecology to….”  Tracy explained that there are two different rules and she will e-mail this information to Walt.  He will work up the appropriate wording and send it out to the Planning Unit for review.

7.      e) Change-The verbiage should be “actual water rights…”  Tracy also said that the “assess water

 use” should include the word “/allocation”.

      8.   f) Potential Augmentation and Storage Strategies

              Note:  Storm Water was added previously to this recommendation

Reanette stated that in the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan there is a statement about limiting the proliferation of domestic exempt wells.  Thought that this needs to go under Water Quantity,

a) Projected Future Growth section (ii).  We will put a placeholder in for additional recommendation after Reanette reads the Comp Plan and puts something together.

Water Quality

Update the parameters in b)

Planning Unit discussed keeping the detailed list or going with a more general statement….

ADD “including but not limited to:”  at the end of the (b) statement.

REMOVE vi (a) conduct TMDL assessment for watershed…” It is already listed.

Under (d) ADD “stream gage to help with TMDL Load allocation…”

ADD

  b(i)  Gage Sites as needed

(e) early implementation & education

  (ii) Septic Systems

     (1)  a) limit proliferation… 

     (2)  education on maintenance & use

     (3)  start inspection/pumping

 (iii) Wellhead Protection

           (1) Recommendations

                           a)   Identify funding for small communities to develop and implement plan

b)      Combine/link with storm water and water plans

ADD

3) Habitat/Land Use

   i) What are the types and extents of land uses appropriate for the watershed?

   ii) Cities have parks along streams.  Limit urban land use near streams.

Homework

Go through the last two pages of the Issue Identification and Characterization document and write up recommendations and send to Walt to compile.  He will put them together for the next meeting. 

Open Discussion/Public Comment

Bill Rickard asked whether or not we intend to recommend that there be a surviving organization for implementing this plan or if it is going to be recommended that it be implemented by an existing political entity?  Walt explained that once the recommendations are in place, the planning unit would determine responsibility for implementation.  It counld be one entity or several.  The Planning Unit can make a better decision once we know what we are recommending.

Bill wanted to make the Planning Unit aware of HB 2393 & 2396, dealing with watersheds planning and would suggest that the Planning Unit read them.

Next Meeting

An additional meeting was scheduled for Monday, February 9, 2004 at 10:00 am to 12:00 pm.  The regular meeting will be on Tuesday, February 17, 2004.    The March meeting was set for Tuesday, March 9, 2004 at 10:00 – 12:00.  All the meetings will be held at the SCCD Offices.