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. Jennie Kane Elaine Snouwaert, Dept. of Ecology Dee Bailey, Coeur d’Alene Tribe Shallan Dawson, SCCD Cathy McBeth Lon Ottosen Micki Harnois Linda Graham, SCCD APPROVIAL OF MINUTES 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. The following corrections were made: On page 2, under Timeline, first paragraph, for the sentence about: The Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP) is more site specific and details who will be reducing pollution. This will be chanted to: The Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP) is more site specific and details which agencies and organizations will be addressing pollution reduction. On page 3, under Timeline, last line in the section, the sentence: Elaine responded that even though it is enforced by Ecology, it is still a voluntary plan. This sentence was changed to: Elaine responded that even though Ecology is required to carry out the plan and to work towards the goals, it does not become a regulation or rule. On page 3 under audit sheets, under county ditch dredging; burn vegetation off was removed as a benefit or motivation to having vegetated ditches. On page 3 under audit sheets, under county ditch dredging; costly equipment was added as a cost or barrier to clean out ditches on fields or next to roads to having vegetated ditches. On page 5 under audit sheets, under sand banks in the lower part of the watershed; Ecology was added to “Old tire fixes could be hard to pass by city council.”. Motion was made to approve the February minutes with changes by Dee Bailey and was seconded by Cathy McBeth. 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. There was no public comment.
Audit Sheets For issues such as “rural” stormwater, it was discussed that we did not want to categorize the issue. Because of this, the rural stormwater issue was renamed to non-sewer stormwater. This is to prevent a rural versus urban distinction in working on the issues. The first issue discussed was agricultural chemical application. Benefits or motivations to reduce overspray and application to sensitive areas: Reduces chemical waste, lowers cost Provides a healthy riparian area, stable banks Reduces destruction of beneficial insects and plants Reduce potential for water contamination from overspray If done properly, reduce chance of penalty Costs or barriers to reduce overspray and application to sensitive areas: Don’t spray weeds near water; weeds could be problem in fields Noxious weed board will talk to you if you don’t control weeds, even near stream (or use other control methods) Benefits or motivations to continue with present spraying were identified as: Easier to do Reduced weeds in fields Increases yields Customer satisfaction, custom sprayer working for farmer Costs or barriers to continue with present spraying were identified as: Could get a fine from Ecology Having a spray buffer reduces available land for farming Cost of doing it wrong can damage adjacent crops The next issue addressed was related to county enforcement of regulations. Benefits or motivations to fair and uniform enforcement of current regulations: Reduces citizen complaints Landowners will know what to expect from officials Costs or barriers to fair and uniform enforcement of current regulations: May require more employees and increased costs Will take longer to permit applications Cost more to enforce, field time, office time, court time Conflict or variations between local, state, or federal agencies Conflict or lack of understanding local plans (shorelines, critical area ordnances, etc) Political pressure lacking Pressure put on political people to allow growth, economic pressure Benefits or motivations to continue current practice were identified as: Don’t have the time or personnel to do enforcement Enforcement is low priority No political pressure from enforcement decisions Costs or barriers to continue current practice were identified as: May get the county sued more often Land uses may not be uniform Pressure from state to create meaningful shoreline program Growth management act The next issue addressed was related to state enforcement of regulations. Benefits or motivations to uniform enforcement and coordination of agencies: Reduces citizen complaints Landowners will know what to expect form officials May require more employees and resources Will take longer to permit applications They don’t know what problems are occurring, rely on public to report problems Lack of state staff to find problems (can’t trespass) The public might not know who to call and for what Don’t have the time or personnel to do enforcement Enforcement is low priority Costs or barriers to continue current practice were identified as: May get the state sued more often Land uses may not be uniform The next issue addressed was Development/Permits (SCCD not on all lists). Benefits or motivations to watershed committee/SCCD review and provide input long term: Reduces citizen complaints Local committee will help with land use decisions Should prevent lawsuits against developers May require more employees Will take longer to permit applications Committee members must represent local interest but be balanced Reduced time to complete permits Costs or barriers to the continuing current practices were identified as: May get the county or state sued more often Land uses may not be uniform The next issue addressed was related to new wetland construction and maintenance of existing wetlands (this is a combined issue of new and existing wetlands). Benefits or motivations to construct wetlands in areas where they were removed or maintain existing wetlands: Increase local water storage Improves water quality, reduces sediment and chemicals Better water retention Increases habitat Aesthetics Less mosquitoes Education Increase recreation Costs or barriers to construct wetlands in areas where they were removed or maintain existing wetlands: Costs money Reduces production land Harder to farm around Less area for development Incorrect belief that they increase mosquitoes Once it is created, difficult to fill back in Permit maze Keeps fields wet longer Benefits or motivations to no new wetland construction or removal of existing wetlands were identified as: No cost Land is available for production or development Removes water from development/fields faster Higher value land use Easier farming and land development Belief that they cause mosquitoes problems Costs or barriers to no new wetland construction or removal of existing wetlands were identified as: May increase floods Reduces available water to groundwater system and surface water Loss of habitat Flash floods in watershed May require permit to remove existing wetlands Increases water quality problems that need to be solved later More expensive to put back if forced to by future regulations The next issue addressed was maintain/increase existing healthy, functioning riparian Areas. Benefits or motivations to maintain and increase current riparian areas: Increase local water filtering Improves water quality, reduces sediment and chemicals Better water retention Better stream side habitat Reduces erosion Reduces production land More weed potential Less area for development Loss of higher production land Reduces area available for rental Lack of education about the value of wetlands/riparian areas (this may apply to many issues) Higher value land use Easier farming and land development Access to water Costs or barriers to remove or degrade riparian areas were identified as: May require permit to remove Increases water quality problems that need to be solved later More expensive to put back if forced to by future regulations Reduces future CSP payments The next issue addressed was return stream to original channel. Benefits or motivations to return to original channel: Stream in balance with energy Improves water quality, reduces bank erosion Less property destruction More natural Loss of land Harder to farm around Less area for development Roads require more bridges Cost Permitting Current land use patterns, zoning Related issue – Re-engineering or moving stream into new channels or ponds (example of Rattler Run) Roads and farms are already done and established Roads are straighter and safer Costs or barriers to straighten for streams were identified as: Change in stream gradient causes erosion Loss of habitat Higher maintenance costs for roads and bridges The next issue addressed was drain tile in agricultural fields. The desired practice and competing practice may be reversed depending on whom you ask. But from a water point (the stream point) drain tiles may reduce recharge and summer base flows. Benefits or motivations to remove or reduce drain tile use: Better for wetland areas Storage of ground water/soil moisture Better base flow during summer low flow periods Costs or barriers to remove or reduce drain tile use: Changes how fields can be worked May require different planting/harvesting times May prevent using some fields Benefits or motivations to retain or install as needed were identified as: Dries field faster, sooner to work fields Easier farming Uniform soil moisture Increase yields Less soil loss For springs, help get water off land and into stream Costs or barriers to retain or install as needed were identified as: Reduces soil water storage Increases flashy nature of runoff events May not be allowed in future The next issue addressed was rock pits/blasting. Benefits or motivations to regulate blasting/mining have water quality monitoring: Prior study could prevent some contamination problems Reduces concerns of close landowners (water wells, etc) Increases permitting costs Increases permitting time Need rock for projects Allowed land use Costs or barriers to unregulated blasting/mining were identified as: Future water quality problems could occur in the ground water Benefits or motivations to increase stream flows: Provides cooler water for fish Provides water for swimming Prevents over allocation of water May limit development May limit types of development May restrict type of summer activities Ecology’s ability/lack of ability to enforce Issue - no permit required for domestic exempt well Better for economic development Doesn’t reduce number of single family plots available Costs or barriers to use all available water were identified as: May reduce the water quality during the summer Destroys fish and riparian habitat The next issue addressed was invasive aquatic plants. Benefits or motivations to reduce plants by mechanical and chemical means: Less plant material in streams Better dissolved oxygen levels Better fish habitat Costs or barriers to reduce plants by mechanical and chemical means: Could cause water quality problems if using chemical control High costs Requires a lot of time Poor plant identification, don’t know what the problem is Site specific problem, not watershed-wide Benefits or motivations to do nothing were identified as: No cost Not a perceived problem Costs or barriers to do nothing were identified as: Could reduce fish habitat The next issue addressed was Beaver Ponds, Increased Stream Fecal. The desired practice and competing practice can be reversed depending on whom you ask. Benefits or motivations to remove beavers and dams: Reduces problems from beaver eating riparian plants Reduces fecal counts Reduced natural habitat Costs money to trap and move beavers Where do you place them May need permits from Fish and Wildlife Localized, site-specific problem rather than a system-wide problem Beavers are natural Small number of animals Help with wetland functions, flood control Costs or barriers to leave beavers alone were identified as: May increase fecal counts above Ecology limits The next issue addressed was Forestry Impacts. Benefits or motivations to harvest trees on a continued or selected basis: Better water quality for downstream landowners Higher overall production by proper management Higher resale value because land looks better Better future trees and faster growth for next cutting Reduced fire hazard Less income in the short term Requires a more skilled logger Higher cost harvest method Varying definitions of healthy forests More money to land owner Less cost to logger Costs or barriers to harvest most trees on a plot were identified as: Higher runoff from logged areas Effects landowners significantly downstream Could get fines from DNR Replanting Public Comment None was presented at this time. Next Meeting The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 21st from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Fairfield Community Center.
March 17, 2005
The next issue addressed was increase instream flows. Goal is to increase the flow in the stream. There are many ways to do it. Having Ecology establish in-stream flow rights is just one strategy.
Water users know about drought years
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.