WRIA 14 PLANNING UNIT MEETING

Wednesday, November 19, 2003

2:30-4:30 p.m.

Shelton Civic Center

Shelton, WA

Meeting Summary

Attendance:

1.      Discussion of Scope of Work for Hydrogeologic Characterization   

q       Jim Mathieu of NW Land and Water presented his scope of work to the Planning Unit.  The goal of this initial contract is to develop a workplan for a hydrogeologic characterization.  The implementation of this workplan will require a contract amendment.

q       The TC has reviewed the Scope of Work and their comments are incorporated into the most recent version.

q       The PU agreed that the contract, with the scope of work that was presented, should be signed as soon as possible.

q       Jim will attend the January TC meeting to discuss his progress with the TC.

q       At Jim’s request, the PU identified the following areas as key areas of concern for new development/demand for water: 

·         McEwan Prairie

·         City of Shelton wells in city vicinity

·         Correction center vicinity

·         Airport vicinity

·         Manke pit vicinity.

q       The PU discussed whether it made sense to include Deer Creek (and possibly Cranberry Creek) in the study area, given that no areas of concern were identified near those creeks.  John K. suggested this be discussed with Bob S. before the study area is changed.  Jim will contact Bob and report back to Susan.

2.      Discussion of Planning Process  

q       The PU discussed the best methods to identify options and reach consensus on recommendations. 

q       The PU reviewed the draft principles being discussed in WRIA 15, but had some concern about the amount of time it would take to reach consensus on broad principles. 

q       The PU instead decided to begin a discussion of key issues of concern to PU members.  The issues need to be based on technical information (i.e. the problem statements should be supported by the Technical Assessment or by other studies). 

q       For the issues identified, the PU will consider a wide range of options to address the problem.  Based on discussion of these options, the PU will reach consensus on recommendations that will likely be a variation on one or more of the options discussed.

q       The PU began this discussion of key issues with the following list:

·         Seismic concerns: the plan should address the possibility of a large earthquake altering or destroying wells, particularly those in the shallow aquifers.

·         Water conservation.

·         Septic systems and denitrofication, particularly near shorelines.  The options should consider impediments to hooking up to sewer systems, and antiquated regulations on septic sizing linked to the number of bedrooms in each house rather than square footage.

·         Stormwater management, especially during flooding.  Both rural areas and developed areas need to be addressed.  Development in floodplains and the expansion of impervious surfaces need to be addressed.

·         Enforcement of existing regulations.

·         Low-impact development options

·         Water re-use options

·         Shellfish harvest protection. This WRIA may have more marine waterfront than any other in the State, and shellfish protection is key.

·         Enhancement of instream flows.  This must address exempt wells and stormwater.

·         Taking care of current resources before there is more growth.

·         Water quality concerns in Summit Lake/Steamboat Island areas.

·         Requiring information on water be included on property titles.

·         Quantifying the impacts of growth; need to grow “smart” and not just let growth happen haphazardly. 

·         Inchoate water rights

·         Land application of sewage rather than marine outfall.

·         Affordability: what are the impacts of the plan recommendations on rural residents?

q       As the process moves forward, the Planning Unit members should begin to compile the technical basis for each concern, as well as to present the PU new ideas/options for consideration.

3.      Schedule

q       The PU reviewed the schedule for WRIA 16 and agreed it was a good model for WRIA 14.  Susan will prepare a similar schedule for WRIA 14.  To the extent possible Susan will include consultant deadlines in the schedule.

q       John K. noted that the end of the process includes inadequate time.

q       The PU may want to consider an all-day retreat in the summer/fall for more discussion time of options and recommendations.

4.      Updates

q       The grant amendments (Watershed Grant, Water Quality Grant, Instream Flow Grant) are all being routed for signature and should be finalized soon.

q       The draft Regional Facility plan will be issued at the end of December; after this is reviewed the Regional Task Force will have a better idea of whether it makes sense to work with the PU on a storage grant request.

q       The January newsletter being prepared by WSU will focus on stormwater.

5.      December Meetings

q       There will be only one meeting in December, a combined Technical Committee/Planning Unit meeting.  This meeting will occur on Wednesday, December 17^th from 2:30-4:30 at the Civic Center.