Meeting Summary Hangman Creek Water Quality Improvement Planning Meeting Chair: Rick Noll, Spokane County Conservation District (SCCD) Present: Charlie Johnson Gary Ostheller William Sayres, Jr. Kris Budde Pat and Jennie Kane Penney Tee Elaine Snouwaert, Dept. of Ecology Dee Ann Bailey, Coeur d’Alene Tribe Bill Rickard, City of Spokane Reanette Boese, Spokane County Shallan Dawson, SCCD AGENDA The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. and began with introductions. The minutes for January were distributed and reviewed. Rick asked for any comments or corrections to the January minutes. There were corrections to Dees name and Penney’s name, and the sentence about to Kris Budde’s livestock CAFO was removed. Motion was made to approve the January minutes by Penney Tee and was seconded by Charlie Johnson. Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS Time sheets Rick asked for everyone to please fill out their timesheets and turn them in. Public comment Rick opened the floor for public comment. This meeting had been moved to Wednesday night, and Charlie wanted to clarify that the next meeting will return to Thursday night. Water Rights- Elaine Snouwaert Elaine presented water rights pertaining to livestock watering as discussed at the last meeting. She presented (as did Kris) the water right law: RCW 90.44.050 After June 6, 1945, no withdrawal of public ground waters of the state shall be begun, nor shall any well or other works for such withdrawal be constructed, unless an application to appropriate such waters has been made to the department and a permit has been granted by it as herein provided: EXCEPT, HOWEVER, That any withdrawal of public ground waters for stock-watering purposes, or for the watering of a lawn or of a noncommercial garden not exceeding one-half acre in area, or for single or group domestic uses in an amount not exceeding five thousand gallons a day, or as provided in RCW 90.44.052, or for an industrial purpose in an amount not exceeding five thousand gallons a day, is and shall be exempt from the provisions of this section, but, to the extent that it is regularly used beneficially, shall be entitled to a right equal to that established by a permit issued under the provisions of this chapter: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That the department from time to time may require the person or agency making any such small withdrawal to furnish information as to the means for and the quantity of that withdrawal: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That at the option of the party making withdrawals of ground waters of the state not exceeding five thousand gallons per day, applications under this section or declarations under RCW 90.44.090 may be filed and permits and certificates obtained in the same manner and under the same requirements as is in this chapter provided in the case of withdrawals in excess of five thousand gallons a day. [2003 c 307 § 1; 1987 c 109 § 108; 1947 c 122 § 1; 1945 c 263 § 5; Rem. Supp. 1947 § 7400-5.] NOTES: Purpose -- Short title -- Construction -- Rules -- Severability -- Captions -- 1987 c 109: See notes following RCW 43.21B.001. The other policy she reported on was: Ecology shall encourage conveyance of stockwater away from streams for the purpose of protecting water quality. The Department of Ecology recognizes that removing livestock from streams will protect water quality and improve vegetative zones associated with stream banks. The change of water right process (90.03.380 RCW) will not be required when small amounts of water consistent with historic practice are diverted (screened and piped) to nearby stockwater tanks for consumption by livestock. If a float or demand type valve is not used, the tank overflow must return to the same source, at or near the point of diversion. The stock tank must serve no greater number of stock than historically range that parcel of property. The quantity consumed from the stock tank should not exceed the quantity consumed if the stock drank directly from the stream. Timeline Rick presented the group with a general timeline for completing sampling, the water quality plan (both the summary and the detailed reports), public outreach and implementation. The group discussed the timeline and generally approved of the proposal with a few minor changes. Elaine explained the Summary Implementation Strategy (SIS) as an outline of issues the group has identified as needing attention. This plan is broad, but can get more specific. The Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP) is more site specific and details who will be reducing pollution. This plan will be submitted to EPA for approval after this group is finished with the plan. The sampling is done for the TMDL unless Hangman receives a high flow, over 6000 cfs before April. Ecology will then have six months to calculate the load allocations. Penney asked how many years of sampling data will be considered in the TMDL allocations. This year has been a low water year and not representative of normal conditions. She added that ten years would be a more accurate. Rick reported that the Conservation District has been sampling in various locations throughout the watershed for many years, and could be taken into account when determining loads. Penney was concerned that the data used for load calculations were a point in time, and not fully representative, or accurate. Once the data has been compiled, and the calculation is complete, Joe Joy from the Department of Ecology will present the results to this group. That will provide this group with an opportunity to comment on his results. Audit sheets will be completed within the next few months, and then we can start identifying and prioritizing Best Management Practices (BMPs). Kris asked about approval of the plan, if it becomes “policy” once approved by Ecology. Elaine responded that even though it is enforced by Ecology, it is still a voluntary plan. Audit sheets The first issue discussed was county ditch dredging. The desired practice is to change from dredging to maintaining vegetated ditches. The competing behavior is to clean out ditches. Benefits or motivations to having vegetated ditches was identified as: Improves water quality Reduces sediment loads Provides natural vegetative filtration Could reduce maintenance Can cross with equipment Burn vegetation off Costs or barriers to having vegetated ditches were identified as: Requires some engineering Plants may need to be thinned May not be enough room along existing roadsides Resistance to change Cost and maintenance Benefits or motivations to clean out ditches on fields or next to roads were identified as: Costs or barriers to the clean out ditches on fields or next to roads were identified as: Delivers sediment to creeks and streams Can plug culverts causing flooding Dredged material needs to be moved The next issue addressed was related to chemicals and Local Sources (Small scale applications: ditch spraying, homeowner spraying). The desired practices were identified as follow label directions, use right amount of chemical or reduce spray where overspray can enter water, with the competing behavior identified as spraying small ditches and near creeks. Benefits or motivations to new chemical application techniques was identified as: Natural riparian plants may not need spray Less weed and feed saves money Don’t kill beneficial insects and plants Safer for pets and kids and environment, all living things Prevents contamination of surface water used for drinking water, or well water. Educate commercial applicators, county, and “small scale agriculture” Reduces need for disposal of extra chemicals Costs or barriers to new chemical application techniques were identified as: May have more weeds My not be able to find the proper spray Have to store more types of chemicals. Resistance to change Lack of education Benefits or motivations to spraying small ditches and near creeks were identified as: Weeds can be a problem near streams Easier to spray out all the weeds at one time. Told to do by commercials, think they are doing it right according to tv, neighbors, and others. Perception of need for “perfect lawn” or non-native landscaping. Costs or barriers to the spraying small ditches and near creeks were identified as: Overspray can pollute waters May get fine if spray wrong chemical in riparian area Fertilizers could pollute ground water to wells (nitrates) Higher cost for chemicals. Use more water to keep up drought tolerant or non-native vegetation. The next issue addressed was related to chemicals and deicer. The desired practices were identified as alternative practices such as sand, with the competing behavior identified as continuing current practices. Benefits or motivations to alternative practices were identified as: Less toxic to micro orgs. Better water quality Reduces cost for road maintenance Works in sub zero temps Highly available (rock mines or pits) Less corrosive on vehicles Less safe? Harder to clean up May cost more More use of natural resource of rock Higher contribution of sediment to surface water More rock chips in car windows More radiator repairs, vehicle maintenance Costs or barriers to the continuing current practices were identified as: The next issue addressed was related to sandbanks in the lower part of the watershed. The desired practices were identified as reduce force of water hitting bank with wiers, and barbs, with the competing behavior identified as leaving the bank as it is. Benefits or motivations to alternative practices were identified as: Reduce sediment load Increase aesthetics Seems like this is an impossible fix, have already tried to establish veg, and ok this year but how will it hold up over time? Daunting task Old tire fixes could be hard to pass by city council Costs or barriers to the continuing current practices were identified as: Stormwater within Spokane city limits that does not drain to a treatment plan was tabled for future discussion as it is probably a small contribution. Stormwater for City of Spokane Bill Rickard presented the plan for stormwater as developed for Eastern Washington. These stormwater manuals addresses non-point source pollution with BMPs. A model ordinance has been developed and cities within Spokane County will be developing policies and ordinances as strict or stricter than the model. Public Comment None was presented at this time. Homework Review the completed audit sheets, complete sheets for the next three or four issues. Next Meeting The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 17th from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Fairfield Community Center.
February 16, 2005
Permit to withdraw.
Keeps water flowing faster
Easy to maintain
Causes erosion of ditch sides, requires more maintenance
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.