WRIA 14 PLANNING UNIT MEETING

 

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Shelton Civic Center

Shelton, WA

 

 

Meeting Summary

 

Attendance:

Government Members Present:

Jeanne Kinney, Thurston County

Pam Bennett-Cumming, Mason County

Dawn Pannell, City of Shelton

John Konovsky, Squaxin Island Tribe

Al Frey, Port of Shelton

Dick Wilson & Ron Gold, Mason County PUD # 1

 

Phil Wiatrak, Dept. of Ecology

 

Government Members Absent:

none

 

 

Other Planning Unit Members Present:

 

Kristy Buck, Realtors/Homebuilders

Constance Ibsen, LHCWC

Warren Dawes, SWPSWC

Bob Simmons & Emily Piper, WSU Extension (ex-officio member)

Diane Cooper, Taylor Shellfish

 

Others Present:

 

 

 

Chris Hempleman, Dept. of Ecology

Susan Gulick, Technical Project Mgr/Facilitator

 

 

1.      Vote on Plan Amendments

q       The Planning Unit voted on proposed amendments to the plan (attached as a separate document). 

q       The three amendments submitted by the Squaxin Island Tribe were voted on as a package.  Voting in favor were the Squaxin Island Tribe, Lower Hood Canal Watershed Coalition, Southwest Puget Sound Watershed Council, and Taylor Shellfish.  Opposed were Mason PUD #1, Mason County, Thurston County, City of Shelton, Port of Shelton, and the Realtors/Homebuilders.  The State/Department of Ecology deferred to the initiating governments to try to reach a consensus, which the state would have supported.  The amendments failed.

q        The amendment proposed by the Realtors/Homebuilders was also defeated.  Voting in support were the City of Shelton and the Realtors/Homebuilders.  Opposed were Mason PUD #1, Squaxin Island Tribe, Thurston County, Lower Hood Canal Watershed Coalition, Southwest Puget Sound Watershed Council, and Taylor Shellfish.  The State/Department of Ecology, Mason County, and Port of Shelton abstained.

q       In discussing the votes on the amendments, Planning Unit members generally agreed with the concepts proposed in the amendments but were concerned about the lack of detail.  Many Planning Unit members felt there was too much unknown in how the amendments would be interpreted and implemented.

 

2.      Vote on Watershed Plan  

q       The Planning Unit voted on the final watershed plan. 

Voting in favor of plan adoption:

ü        Mason PUD #1

ü        Mason County

ü        City of Shelton

ü        Thurston County

ü        Port of Shelton

ü        Washington State Department of Ecology

ü        Realtors/Homebuilders

ü        Lower Hood Canal Watershed Coalition

ü        Southwest Puget Sound Watershed Council

ü        Taylor Shellfish

Voting to oppose plan adoption:

ü        Squaxin Island Tribe

Abstentions:

ü        None

q       Because the Watershed Planning Act requires consensus of all government members plan adoption failed.

q       Planning Unit members stated that even though adoption failed, it has been a useful process with many excellent products produced. 

q       Other Planning Unit members expressed disappointment because much time and money went into the effort and the level of disagreement is relatively small.  These members expressed some frustration that agreement could not be reached.

q       The Tribe recognized much good work done by the Planning Unit, particularly the technical work done around Johns Creek.

q       The Tribe stated that there are two primary reasons for opposing the plan.  First, they do not believe that the Watershed Planning Units are the appropriate forums for making decisions about water.  They believe there should be direct discussions among the elected officials who have “ownership” of the water (tribal, state and federal governments—though they accept City and County elected officials as agents of the state).  In addition, the Tribe has some concerns about some ambiguities in the law about Phase IV implementation, particularly as it relates to instream flows and defining “over-riding considerations of public interest”.  The Tribe is not interested in continuing the Planning Unit or the watershed planning process under Chapter 90.82 RCW in any way.

 

3.      Future of the Planning Unit  

q       Phil made a motion that the Planning Unit continue meeting.  The motion failed.

q       John made a motion that the Planning Unit terminate.  The motion failed.

q       Phil made a second motion:

I move the WRIA 14 Planning Unit continue to meet, subject to available, local resources.  I further move that these meetings:

1) Focus on a good faith effort to advance the many water quality and water resource issues upon which there are unanimous agreement;

2) Provide a forum to continue discussions on outstanding issues among those who have the greatest knowledge of both the resources and the aspirations of those who live and work in the watershed, and who have the greatest stake in the proper, long-term management of the resources; and,

3) Allow for the possibility of reconsidering adoption of a comprehensive watershed plan.  The motion failed.

q       The Planning Unit agreed that because there was not consensus to continue the Planning Unit, the Planning Unit would terminate in accordance with RCW 90.82.130(2)(b).

 

4.      Final Steps  

q       The Planning Unit authorized the following activities before the watershed planning grant is closed:

ü       Completion of a final newsletter by WSU.  The newsletter will give an overview of current conditions in the watershed (as stated in the final draft plan), describe the technical work completed, and explain that the plan was not adopted.  It will also summarize how the grant monies were spent.

ü       Coordination and communication activities by Susan, including close out of consultant contracts.  Susan will also get the final database from Jim Mathieu from the hydrogeo study;

ü       Reproduction of the Final Draft Plan (with a note on the cover that it was not approved by the Planning Unit).

ü       Reproduction of additional copies of the two reports by NW Land and Water and the Water Quality Monitoring Plan prepared by EnviroVision (hard copies and CDs).

 

5.      Closing

q       In closing, Planning Unit members commented that while they were disappointed in the final result, they appreciated the professionalism of the members of the Planning Unit and felt it was a good process with many useful products.

q       It was also noted that the issues raised during the process are not going to go away and that there is hope that all the members of the Planning Unit and their respective organizations will continue to work together to address water quality, water quantity and habitat issues in the watershed.