WRIA 14

COMBINED TECHNICAL COMMITTEE/PLANNING UNIT MEETING

Wednesday, March 10, 2004

9:00-12:30 p.m.

Shelton Civic Center

Shelton, WA

Meeting Summary

Attendance:

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEMS

1.      Hydro-Geo Project

q       The TC discussed the proposed scope of work from NW Land & Water.

q       A schedule needs to be added to the scope.

q       The TC had hoped to see a task for the environmental isotope work; Susan will ask Jim to provide a description and budget for this task.  The PU can decide at the next meeting whether to include this.

q       The TC would like clear deliverables noted for every task.

q       In particular, the TC wants maps of the study area and selected wells as deliverables.

q       In task 3-C, the TC needs to be consulted in evaluating the efficacy of the monitoring strategy.

q       The deliverables need to include a draft plan with an opportunity for review/comment by the PU.

q       The TC hopes to finalize the scope of work at their April meeting.

q       In the meantime, Phil is pursuing technical review by the Instream flow experts at Ecology and WDFW, and Jason and Phil are coordinating on the grant amendment.

2.      Storage Grant

q       The TC reviewed a proposed scope of work for the proposed storage grant.

q       Before the contract with Cosmopolitan can be finalized a grant application to Ecology needs to be submitted.

q       The TC would like the following changes/clarifications to the scope of work:

o       Incorporate Jim Mathieu’s comments into the scope of work ;

o       Add a statement clarifying that the final data will belong to the Planning Unit and that all data will be will be supplied in the original file format at the end of the project (in addition to PDF files).

o       On Task 3-2b) delete the words “potential for detrimental”, and on 3-2d) delete the word “undesirable”.

o       The TC believes 3-4 meetings will be sufficient (currently there are 9 listed) and so the budget should be reduced accordingly.

q       The TC would also like the consultants to complete the grant application, although Phil will fill out the budget form.

q       Theresa will coordinate with Cosmopolitan, Phil and Jason to get the grant application completed, signed and submitted.

PLANNING UNIT AGENDA ITEMS

3.      Centennial Grant Prioritization

q       The PU heard presentations on the three Centennial Grants being proposed for WRIA 14 (all by the Conservation District) and ranked them as follows.

1.      Totten/Eld Inlet Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP)

2.      Participation in the Oakland Bay TMDL implementation

3.      Educate citizens about pet waste.

4.      Plan Writing

q       The PU discussed the costs and benefits of hiring someone to provide plan writing or technical editing for the watershed plan.

q       Some PU members felt the initial drafts were not adequate but felt there had been improvement in the more recent drafts.

q       The PU discussed the importance of readability; some members questioned how many people would read the plan even if it were well-written, and others believed it was very important to have plan that is clear and understandable for the public.

q       It was clarified that there are really two issues: one is the quality of the writing of the plan, and the second is timing/budget.  The technical studies may require the plan to be delayed until mid-late 2005, and there is not enough budget to pay the monthly fee to the County for .5 FTE throughout that time period. 

q       Phil raised the issue of fiscal responsibility; he cited WRIA 17 who paid $30,000 for an entire plan and WRIA 14 is projected to pay much more than that for an in-house writer.

q       PU members asked how much the County’s cost would be reduced if the PU hired a plan writer and relieved Jason of this responsibility.

q       Bob F. explained that the County has budgeted based on the assumption that this position will be paid for with grant funds; he believes the County has some flexibility to absorb part of those costs but could not say by how much.

q       The PU discussed how much they value Jason’s contributions to the WRIA and how important it is to keep him involved.  At a minimum, Jason needs to continue with the administrative portions of his work (contract and grant processing, etc.).  It was asked how Jason’s time was split; Susan conveyed that Jason had indicated that while the bulk of his time is plan writing, the administrative tasks do consume a substantial amount of time.

q       The PU discussed options to improve the quality of the plan chapters.

q       The PU voted on the question “Does the PU want to hire an outside consultant to write the plan?”.  Mason County abstained from the vote but the other PU members all voted yes. 

q       Some PU members stated that they did not share the strong concerns about the quality of the plan, but believed it was better to make a decision now and therefore concurred with the group. 

q       The PU then asked the County how it could support this, and specifically to provide information about how much the budget would be reduced if plan writing is removed from the services provided by the County.

q       The County will report back to the PU at the next PU meeting.

5.      Budget Review  

q       The PU first discussed the budgets for the supplemental grants.

q       The remaining funds in the ISF grant will dedicated to the NW Land & Water Hydro-geo project except that $10,000 will be reserved for step C of that grant (evaluating existing Instream flows).

q       The storage grant will be allocated to the Cosmopolitan project, with $6,000-$10,000 reserved for project management or plan writing activities.

q       The PU then discussed how to allocate the $110,000 that is currently ear-marked for additional technical studies, and came up with the following:

ü        The contingency funds will be increased to six months, which will cost an additional $21,000.

ü        The Hydro-Geo Project will be allocated $35,000 (the remaining $75,000 will come from the ISF grant).

ü        The Gold borough Creek Temperature Study will be allocated $9,000.

ü        A consultant for plan writing was allocated $35,000

ü        Funding to assist with the completion of the Salmon Habitat Recovery Strategy (which will become the habitat component of the watershed plan) will be allocated $5,000.

q       These projects total $105,000.

q       The PU decided to finalize the budget at the next PU meeting after they have information from Mason County on how the decision to hire a plan writer will affect the budget. 

q       Bob F. also suggested some additional technical analysis on water quantity that would be useful for the plan.  The PU may consider this at the next PU meeting.

6.      Upcoming Meetings

q      The March 24 PU meeting is cancelled.

q      The next Technical Committee will be on Wednesday, April 14^th from 10-12 at the Civic Center.

q      The next Planning Unit meeting will be on Wednesday, April 28^th at the Shelton Civic Center from 2:30-4:30. 

7.      Susan’s Vacation

q      Susan will be on vacation March 17-April 9.