Meeting Summary Planning Unit WRIA 56 Hangman (Latah) Creek Local Watershed Plan April 20, 2004 Chair: Walt Edelen, Spokane County Conservation District (SCCD) Present: Gary Ostheller, Fairfield Triangle Grange Bruce Carmack, Rock Creek Resident Reanette Boese, Spokane County Bill Rickard, City of Spokane Peter Grunte, Hangman Valley Resident Dee Bailey, Coeur d’Alene Tribe Steve Bortfeld, Hangman Hills Water District Doug Allen, Ecology Rick Noll, SCCD Marcia Sands, Golder Associates Jennifer Grimm, SCCD The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. with introductions. Minutes: Walt asked for any additional corrections or comments to the March 23, 2004 meeting minutes that were distributed prior to today’s meeting. There were no additional changes to the minutes other than the ones mentioned at the April 15, 2004 meeting. The minutes were approved with changes. Open Discussion/Public Comment Business Multipurpose Storage Contract Walt and Rick explained to the Planning Unit that Chris Pitre had questions and concerns regarding the contract. The question has been raised in regards to the 50% retainer that is currently reflected in the contract. Chris Pitre stated that Golder could live with 10%. The Planning Unit discussed the retainer percentage and decided that 10% would be adequate for the contract. Additional comments to the contract included: ARTICLE 5. COMPENSATION Section A. Change from 50% to 10% And keeping B. Basis of Compensation: Fee Not TO Exceed contract value… The Planning Unit also discussed the issue of document ownership. Walt will add Article 8 and 29 of the County’s contract to cover this issue. Doug Allen said that the statement “this project is funded by the State of Washington and accordingly all materials are available under the Freedom of Information Act”, needs to be added to the contract. Gary Ostheller raised the question regarding Safety and Liability Issue. Bill Rickard said that basically the contract needs to stipulate that they need to be cognizant and in compliance with any regulatory requirements for their safety. The contract will be revised with these suggestions and sent to Golder for their signature of acceptance. Walt will e-mail the Planning Unit today to let them know if Golder accepted the contract with the revisions or if there are still some issues to work out. Instream Flow Position & Public Meeting Walt explained the he would like to review our position with the Planning Unit members and then take it out to the Public and gather input from the public. All this information will then be put together in a final report for the Department of Ecology by the end of June 2004 to close out the grant. We have a no cost time extension until the end of June 2004. Doug Allen reviewed what Ecology would like documented for the final report. The final report will present the “common ground” and the differences of the Planning Unit members. It will also include the public’s input. Ecology will then review the final report and take responsibility for developing a formal minimum instream flow ruling for Hangman Creek. Walt began to go over what has been recorded since October 2003 as Instream Flow proposals and what the Planning Unit’s position is at this point, which is The Planning Unit agreed on the date, July 1st through October 31st, but the 15cfs became a debate. The cfs numbers of 6cfs or 15cfs were discussed but there wasn’t a consensus by the Planning Unit. Doug Allen stated that we need to document our points of consensus and that the planning unit needs to discuss other components of instream flow, such as a municipal reserve. This also brought up the issues of domestic exempt wells, ground water, and the upper watershed that haven’t been fully discussed after the Planning Unit tabled the Instream Flow issue. The Planning Unit decided to set up another meeting to discuss municipal reserve, domestic exempt wells, ground water, and the upper watershed. Walt mentioned that he had contacted Tim Hardin in regard to the instream flow recommendations on the planning unit. After careful consideration of both numbers (15 and 6 cfs), Tim stated that 6 cfs was not a realistic minimum flow to set. It happens that, because of the shape of the WUA vs. flow curves, that the “10% change per 1 cfs” threshold is reached at 6 cfs in the downstream reach, and 7 cfs in the combined upstream reaches. A conclusion from this that 6 cfs at the gage is in any way protective of the fishery was a big stretch. According to his report, one could conclude that 6 cfs in the reach downstream of Marshall is below the critical level, and thus a very undesirable flow. And if it is 6 cfs there, it is about 1-2 cfs in Hangman Cr. above Marshall Creek. So a 6 cfs flow at the gage means that flows in 90% of the creek are far below the critical threshold. He did support the possibility of setting an instream flow of approximately 7 cfs at an upstream gage, which would be more like 15 cfs at the USGS gage. Rick gave progress report on the document. He thought that within a week he would be able to send out the updated version to the Planning Unit for review. Watershed Issues/Recommendations Reannette reported that she took the information on riparian habitat to Tim Lawhead at the county who knows the most about shorelines. He stated there was something in the critical area ordinance on riparian habitat. Doug Allen reported that he did some checking on the possibility of doing a FEMA funded study to reassess the 100-year flood plain. The Planning Unit needs to get a recommendation list of priority sites to Ted Olson (Ecology), by May 3, 2004. Reannette reported that she did some homework on the issue brought up at the last meeting regarding whether there is are existing emergency management services available. Essentially, there is none available. The Planning Unit continued progress on the Issues and Recommendations list where they left off at the April 15 meeting. Fisheries Habitat Recommendation(s): DELETE Fish barriers shall be identified and mapped within the mainstem and tributaries. An action plan to eliminate the barriers shall be developed. Replace “shall” with “should” in the second sentence. DELETE Conduct PFC’s (Proper Function Condition Assessment) on the remaining tributaries. Change PFC to be put in parenthesis. The hydrograph should be evaluated to indicate whether the current hydrology supports flows required for returning migratory salmonids. Evaluate whether the current hydrology is capable of supporting flows required for returning migratory salmonids. DELETE Water Quality (flow related parameters) Hangman Creek is listed on 303(d) List of impaired water bodies for four parameters (fecal coliform, pH, dissolved oxygen, and temperature). Recommendation(s): DELETE Replace (a) with i). Identify that portion of Spokane River Load Allocation apportioned to Hangman Cr. on which to base Hangman Cr. TMDL load allocation. Change to: Participate in Lake Spokane D.O. tmdl process related to point and non-point sources in the Hangman Creek watershed. DELETE Note: include recommendation at a later date. (b)Existing information gaps should be evaluated with short and long-term monitoring efforts including, but not limited to: Change to: Evaluate information (data) gaps for short and long-term water quality needs. DELETE all subheadings below DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE Identify Sediment sources Change to: Evaluate the long-term trends of sediment loads. Open Discussion/Public Comment Bill Rickard encouraged the Planning Unit to read the document titled, Assessments of Changes in Water Quality, which is on the Department of Ecology’s website. Next Meeting An Instream Flow meeting will be held on April 27, from 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. The next regular WRIA meeting will be held on May 27, from 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Both meetings will be held at the SCCD offices. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.
ReportA comprehensive fisheries habitat/species inventory shall be conducted on the mainstem and tributaries.A DNA study of redband trout introgression shall be conducted.Target species and required flows should be identified for certain times of the year. A TMDL study should be undertaken to apportion pollutant load allocation (nonpoint sources).Establish Impact Fee structure within the context of a Local Improvement District based on the loading of sediment and phosphorus. The nitrogen levels throughout the Vinegar Flats area.The entire length of Marshall Creek. California Creek above Highway 27. California Creek near the canyon mouth.Rock Creek upstream of Rockford. Reaches and tributaries identified in the Proper Functioning Condition study.Mainstem reaches of Hangman Creek in the Proper Functioning Condition study should be regrouped into maybe 5 or 6 reaches for sampling design.