Critical Water Planning Area (CWPA Subcommittee

Critical Water Planning Area (CWPA) Subcommittee

Meeting Summary

Meeting Date: January 14, 2005 (10:00 – 3:00 pm)

Location: PADEP, Rachel Carson State Office Bldg., Harrisburg, PA

Prepared By: J. MacKenzie – sitting in for J. Bowers, CWPA Subcommittee Chair

ATTENDEES: (CHECK AGAINST LIST)

▪ Subcommittee Members: Jim MacKenzie, Gary Merritt, Gary Petrewski, Greg Cavallo, Mike Brownell, Preston Luitweiler, Leroy Young, Uwe Weindel, Terry Dayton, Craig Kern, Curtis Schreffler, Bob Reichart, Julia Kiang, Bob Wendlegass

▪ PADEP: Sue Weaver, Bill Gast, Dave Jostenski, Pam Bishop, Tom Yeager, John Diehl, Mark Mathews, Moss Waghat

▪ Guests: Todd Giddings, Tim Weston, Steve Rhoads, Bill Gerlach, Peter Robelif, Stan Geary

TOPICS DISCUSSED:

1. Introductions were made. Guests were encouraged to sign in.

2. Lunch Arrangements were made and provided by DEP.

3. Public Comments – Steve Rhoads of “The Pennsylvania Environmental Reporter” – Inquired why the SWC and CWPA are not adhering to DEP policy for posting meeting agendas and minutes on a timely basis and in advance of scheduled meetings. Sue responded that changes for both committees are changing rapidly and even right up to the meetings themselves, and also that DEP staff is presently overloaded with attending meetings and coordination of these meetings. Sue also reported that the issue was a priority for them to address in 2005.

4. Approval of Meeting Summary – November 4, 2004 Meeting Summary was discussed. Bob R. asked that Julia Kiang be moved from Guest to Committee Member and there was note that several names were misspelled. Bob R. moved, Craig K. seconded motion to approve the meeting summary with the noted revisions; it was unanimously approved.

5. Update on Statewide Water Committee Activities: Jim and Sue provided an update regarding the latest SWC activities, noting that at the last meeting upon recommendation from the CWPA committee the SWC approved a motion to distribute the Draft Process for CWPA Designation, the Draft Criteria for CWPA Designation (without Numerical Data), and the Draft Outline for the Regional Water Plans to the Regional Committees, and members of the Statewide Committee for review and comment. Comments on these three documents are to be returned by Feb. 28, 2005. The SWC decided not to act at this time upon recommendations from the CWPA committee regarding: a) The SWC begin discussions at a policy level of what to do with the majority of the state that would not be designated as CWPA’s, b) that the Draft Process for CWPA document be moved over to the P&I committee for consideration when comments are returned by the end of Feb. It was reported that while no formal action was taken on these issues, the P&I committee is beginning to take up several policy issues that relate directly to the technical issues being addressed by the CWPA subcommittee.

6. Other Updates – Sue reported that in response to the CWPA committee’s request for “Locations/Areas of Concern” throughout the State, DCNR is preparing a report based on areas of concern throughout the state based on underlying geology that might be “low yield” producing areas. A preliminary map and accompanying information was presented with discussion following, however with some confusion over what information was actually being presented, it was decided to table the issue until DCNR provided a final document for the committee’s consideration.

7. Summary of Initial Feedback from Regional Committees: Sue and representatives from the Regional Committees gave a brief update on some of the initial feedback on the draft documents sent to the Regional Committees for their review. Most of the comments thus far have focused on the Draft Process for CWPA’s and that sub-committees of the Regional Committees have been formed to address these documents. Some initial comments included “What to do about having a CWPA de-listed when it is no longer deemed to be a CWPA?” “Do we even need this process?” and concerns about the local and municipal sign off section, and that it should be based on notification and not a “sign off” of agreement when a CWPA is nominated. It was also suggested that the reason few initial comments were made regarding the draft CWPA Criteria document could be that the numerical information was not provided at the time of distribution.

8. Draft Criteria for CWPA Designation:

A discussion on the Draft Criteria for CWPA Designation was the main agenda item for the meeting. Mike B. took the role of leading the committee through the 12.06.04 document as prepared by the “sub-sub committee”. Bill G. and Pam B. will prepare a revised document based on the discussion from today’s meeting that will provide the detailed changes. The following is a summary of the main points of the discussion that included members of the committee, DEP representatives and several of the guests in attendance.

Introduction

Several changes by DEP were proposed to address tense changes and wording to conform with statutory language of Act 220.

I. Authorization for Designation of CWPA’s

There was discussion regarding paraphrasing of the definition of safe yield, and agreement to use the actual definitions as defined by Act 220.

II. Criteria and Standards for Identifying CWPA’s

A general reworking of this section specifically regarding the “questions to be answered in the affirmative” evolved into a revision of two questions instead of the original four, while still maintaining the content of the entire section. Gary P. pointed out that there was still no language regarding the importance of recharge areas and changes to recharge areas over time. Language was proposed to question #2 to address this issue. Bob W. was concerned about new language related to “serious health threat.”

Section A. Planning Area Size – Discussion focused on whether smaller hydrologic units can be proposed and whether those proposals need to be “subtended” into the 15 square mile recommendation. There was also discussion about whether “reliable site-specific hydrologic data for the smaller site is necessary language or a requirement for submitting smaller sites. There was no consensus from the group on these issues and it was recommended to proceed with the revised language and receive comments from Regionals and others on this issue.

Section C. Time Horizon

Language was agreed upon to change the last sentence to address CWPA that are proposed prior to completion of the State Plan that these areas demonstrate “a more immediate safe yield threat” to conform with intent of language of Act 220.

Section D. Safe Yield of Available Resources

Uwe W. pointed out that the beginning of this section puts the emphasis on water quality vs. water quantity availability as it relates to water quality. It was determined that the first paragraph be moved after the second paragraph to help put the emphasis in the proper context.

In addition, proposed wording changes to this section by DEP after the 12.06.04 document were discussed and several of these areas were changed again by general agreement by the committee.

Discussion then centered on the Instream Flow conditions and the general agreement by the “sub sub committee” to the criteria agreed upon based on the 12.6.04 draft. At this point, Bill G. informed the committee of comments made by Dept. Sec. Meyers at the recent P&I Committee meeting suggesting she wanted to see a buffer or greater allowance for aquatic instream uses as the science regarding IFIM was not yet sound. Substantial discussion followed and options were considered to address the Secretary’s comments including a proposed re-write of this section by Preston L. in light of the comments. It was decided by the majority, but not by consensus to put forth the criteria agreed upon in the 12.6.04 draft and encourage the P&I committee and DEP to address this issue during the comment period and provide guidance back to the committee.

Other Critical Uses

Brief discussion about proposed wording changes to this section by DEP after the 12.06.04 document were discussed and several of these areas were changed again by general agreement by the committee.

9. 2005 Schedule:

The tentative dates for the next two meetings of the CWPA Committee were set for March 11 and June 14th pending confirmation with Chair Jan Bowers and coordination with DEP regarding the Regional Committee meetings and their responses to the (3) draft documents by the end of Feb.

10. Recommendations to forward to the Statewide Water Committee:

It was determined that the revised draft CWPA Criteria document with numerical information that Bill and Pam will revise based on today’s discussions and dated 1.18.05 should be distributed to the Statewide Water Committee on 1.20.05 with the recommendation to distribute to the Regional Committees for comment. The comment period (for the CWPA Criteria document only) should be extended to a date to be determined (possibly by the last May Regional Committee meeting) to allow for thorough analysis by the Regional Committees and other reviewers including Statewide Committee members and DEP. This should also include any comments on issues related to policy decisions about CWPA designations.

NEXT STEPS:

1. Pam and Bill to finalize revised draft Criteria document for distribution to the CWPA Committee and the Statewide Water Committee prior to the 1.20.05 meeting.

2. Preston L. will provide the members of the CWPA Committee copy of his proposed re-write of Section D for consideration by the committee.

NEXT MEETING: March 11, 2005, (10:00 to 3:00) (LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED).

ADJOURNED: 3:10 p.m.