Hangman Creek Water Quality Improvement

Planning Meeting

October 20, 2005

Chair:             Rick Noll, Spokane County Conservation District

Present:          Elaine Snouwaert, Department of Ecology

Reanette Boese, Spokane County

Charlie Johnson

David Tysz

Bill Rickard, City of Spokane

William Sayres

Micki Harnois

Walt Edelen, Spokane County Conservation District

Cathy McBeth

Gary Ostheller

Jessica Pilgrim, Spokane County Conservation District

Mike VanSulf

Bruce Carmack

Chet Jahns

Thomas J. Smith

Tammy Mendoza

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. 

The minutes for July were reviewed.  Elaine noted that the motion to approve had May minutes instead of June minutes being approved.  Bill Rickard also noted that the motion indicated the June minutes were revised when they were not. 

A Motion was made to approve the July minutes as revised above by Charlie Johnson and was seconded by Bill Rickard.  Motion carried.

Old business

Rick asked for everyone to please fill out their timesheets and turn them in.

Rick opened the floor for public comment.  Two new attendees were welcomed and they stated where they were from and introduced themselves. 

Review of Spokane River TMDL non-point progress- Walt Edelen

Walt passed around the Spokane River TMDL Collaboration Project Information Sheet (Dated September 2005), and discussed briefly how the Spokane River TMDL is connected to the Hangman Creek TMDL.  Point and Non Point Sources alike were discussed and the different possibilities for reduction mentioned.  It was also noted that this sheet states the Hangman Creek contribution as 39 lbs/day versus the 19 lbs/day in Ecology’s model for the Spokane River.  The reason for this change was explained as an adjustment for the average flow versus Ecology’s number based on a low flow year for Hangman Creek.

The HB 2514 plan for Hangman Creek was also discussed briefly, accompanied by a handout.

Review of the summary of our work to date

Rick handed out a two-page summary of the work that had been completed by the group.  Rick reviewed it for the new attendees. 

Review of load allocation progress by Joe Joy – Elaine or Joe

Joe Joy is continuing to work on the load allocation project.

Walk through Daft Submittal Report – Elaine and Rick

Elaine circulated a handout entitled “EPA Region 10 TMDL Review Checklist”.  She stated that this is the checklist that EPA reviews with a TMDL submittal report

Rick handed out the “Draft Hangman (Latah) Creek TMDL Submittal Report”.  There was a brief walk through of the layout and contents of this document.  Rick asked for any comments to be sent to him

There were questions regarding the Idaho portion of Hangman Creek and what they will be doing to control the non point sources on that side of the border.  Rick and Elaine stated that the tribe was cooperating with the TMDL and had recently talked to Joe Joy about using the same model to evaluate pollution loads.

Where are we headed?  Detailed Implementation Plan, SIS, additional Studies

There was a brief discussion on the name change of the Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP) to the Water Quality Implementation Plan (WQIP).  A handout was circulated regarding the outline of the WQIP.  Rick reviewed how the current work was part of an outline call a Summary Implementation Strategy.  The more detailed plan would be completed after the load estimations were completed.

Public Comment

Gary had a comment regarding Waste Water Treatment reuse regarding the inability to use irrigation as a means for reducing Phosphorus entering the creek.

Micki mentioned that if a Phosphate reduction/elimination program is a possibility, it is better to let the local government try to tackle it first rather than the state government.  On the same note a gradual change would be preferable over an abrupt change.

Bill Sayres wanted to know if there were other Washington TMDLs that were further along.  He then thought there could be a review of their progress.

There was comment about involving more children and classrooms regarding watershed education and outreach.  There was a desire for more information regarding phosphate dish detergents and phosphates in non-agricultural fertilizer for possible non point source reductions of phosphates.

Walt also discussed cost sharing programs regarding water Quantity for projects such as sediment basins and grass waterways.

NEXT MEETING

The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, November 17, 2005 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Fairfield Community Center. 

ADJOURN

The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.