Meeting Summary Hangman Creek Water Quality Improvement Planning Meeting Chair: Shallan Dawson, Spokane County Conservation District(SCCD) Present: Cathy Mc Beth Charlie Johnson Gary Ostheller William Sayres, Jr. Kris Budde Lon Ottosen Pat and Jennie Kane Penney Tee Micki Harnois Elaine Snouwaert, Dept. of Ecology Dee Anne Bailey, Coeur d’Alene Tribe Bill Rickard, City of Spokane Reanette Boese, Spokane County Dennis D. Fuller, Century West Engineering AGENDA The meeting was called to order at 6:55 p.m. and began with introductions. The minutes for October were distributed and reviewed. Shallan asked for any comments or corrections to the October minutes. There was one correction to the audit sheets for roads. Motion was made to approve the October minutes by Penny Tee and was seconded by Charlie Johnson. Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS Time sheets Shallan asked for everyone to please fill out their timesheets and turn them in. Public comment Shallan opened the floor for public comment. County Roads Report- Reanette updated the group with information from the county roads department. She had asked them about sediment basins at culverts to catch runoff, and summer roads policies. Their response in a November 22nd e-mail is as follows: “The county does not install sediment basins at every culvert. We install them as needed at collection points in roadways (on paved surfaces) where a culvert discharges from the collection box. Yes, unpaved roads can carry sediment to streams. This isn’t as prevalent as roadway ditches carrying sediment to streams. Roadways are usually fairly compact, the water flows from them into the roadway ditches and then into the streams. Those ditches we have recurring problems with are usually rip rapped to prevent erosion. Summer roads are closed for some time in November until sometime in the spring. We don’t barricade them, it’s an “honor system” type thing. If folks use them and tear them up… and we catch them, we can try to get them to pay for damages.” TMDL Questions Garry asked if the TMDL would address the tributaries to Hangman Creek, or if the allocations would only be on the main stem. Elaine responded that all major tributaries would be given an allocation. Some of the pollutants will be addressed in pounds per day, and others in percent reduction. Once Ecology determines the load allocation and reduction, they will present the results to this group. The county shoreline advisory committee is currently reviewing designations for all county shorelines and will be revising the Shoreline Master Program. Micki suggested having someone from the group attend the next meeting to discuss the goals and outcome of the review. The group thought this was a good idea. Jackets Charlie reminded the group of an earlier motion to purchase jackets for the TMDL group as an outreach strategy. Elaine responded that this was not an eligible cost under the grant conditions. Audit Sheets The issues list and copies of the audit sheets were passed around. The group added forestry under the other category. Shallan gave a brief review of the purpose and process of the audit sheets. The audit sheets are a tool to help evaluate issues, and will be used in the future to identify appropriate solutions to possible management problems. Before the group started on the next audit sheet, the ideas presented at the November meeting were reviewed and discussed. Kris mentioned that the desire to fence livestock from the creek was listed as the desirable practice and the right thing to do. This has had an impact on his livestock operation. His landlord will not allow him to winter the cattle along the stream and he now has a CAFO, which is regulated by the USDA. The wording was changed from “Influencing neighbors and it’s the right thing to do” to “influencing neighbors to promote stewardship.” Penny also asked that the word behavior be changed to practice. The first issue the group decided to discuss was Stormwater in rural towns. The group decided to add the issue of stormwater in the city limits that bypass drains and discharge directly to the streams. The first issue discussed was stormwater in rural towns. The desired behavior is to control the runoff that is directly entering the stream. The competing behavior is to continue current management practices. Benefits or motivations to control the runoff that is directly entering the stream was identified as: Cleaner water Higher infiltration/water recharge/increase water storage Less erosion Costs or barriers to control the runoff that is directly entering the stream were identified as: Need more resources & coordination Space issues-land acquisitions Benefits or motivations to continue current management practices were identified as: Doesn’t cost anything Always done it this way Easy and convenient Uses less space/land Costs or barriers to the continue current management practices were identified as: Possible future regulations Maintenance If combined with sewer, could cost more to treat Contributes to pollution It was suggested that Walt and Rick fill in the desired practice for future audit sheets. The issue of water rights for agriculture use was also discussed, and Elaine will bring information to the next meeting. Stormwater management within Spokane City Limits was discussed, and Bill Rickard will provide information at the next meeting. Public Comment Charlie moved to change the next meeting date to Wednesday, February 16th as a few people have a conflict on the 17th. Lon seconded the motion, motion carried. Homework Review the completed audit sheets, complete sheets for the next three or four issues. Next Meeting The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 16th from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Fairfield Community Center. January 20, 2005
Shorelines
Funding Resistance to change
Maintenance
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.