Meeting Summary Planning Unit WRIA 56 Hangman (Latah) Creek Local Watershed Plan May 27, 2004 Chair: Walt Edelen, Spokane County Conservation District (SCCD) Present: Gary Ostheller, Fairfield Triangle Grange
Reanette Boese. Spokane County
Bill Rickard, City of Spokane
Peter Grunte, Hangman Valley Resident
Steve Bortfeld, Hangman Valley Water District
Rick Noll, SCCD
Jilla Harmon, SCCD
Minutes
The minutes for the April 15, 20 and 27, 2004 meetings were distributed. Walt asked for any corrections or comments.
April 15 meeting minutes were approved as is.
April 20 meeting minutes- Reanette noted that her name was misspelled on page 3. Bill Rickard said the name of the document listed on page 5 of the minutes should be: “Assessment of Changes in Water Quality in the Spokane River Between Riverside State Park and the Washington-Idaho Border”. Minutes were approved with corrections noted.
April 27 meeting minutes- clarification on the municipal reserve section to read municipal reserve and domestic reserve and add a ‘s to Reanette on page 2. Minutes were approved with corrections noted.
Announcements/Open Discussion/Public Comment
Bill Rickard said that there was an article in the North Palouse Journal, a few weeks ago, that the Town of Waverly was applying for additional water rights. This was due to the recommendation given them during the meetings that Walt and Rick had with each of the small town city councils this past winter and spring.
Doug Allen announced that he has taken another position with Department of Ecology in Bellingham and would be moving in a couple of months.
business
Hangman Sediment Reduction Grant
Walt reported that this was the only proposal that came out of Spokane County for the 319 Centennial Clean Water Fund through Ecology. We proposed to work on approximately a mile of stream banks down below California Creek, repairing restorations and trying to reduce the sediment input there. The project was not funded.
Red Band Survey Report
This was a DNA study being conducted by Fish & Wildlife looking at a couple of tributaries, Rock Creek and California Creek, in the Hangman watershed this year. Jason McCellan from F&W was also going to look at Coldwater Spring. The Conservation District spent time with Randy James and some of his Science students from North Central High School gathering the data. Both the F&W lab in Olympia and the North Central High School lab will complete the DNA tests and the results from both labs will be compared. This will be coordinated with the Coeur d’Alene Tribe study. The reports should be out by the end of this year.
Hangman TMDL Status
Rick reported that the HCWQ Implementation Plan group had their second meeting on April 29. The group is working on getting up to speed on the different aspects of the project. Elaine Snouwaert, from Ecology, gave a TMDL 101 presentation at the meeting. Rick is working on future presentations with Department of Ecology to talk about regulations and what the standards are, etc. Rick will be asking someone from the 2514 project to talk to the group sometime in the future as well. The group does realize that flow is a component of the TMDL.
The Conservation District is continuing the sampling on the Hangman Creek. There is another four months left of sampling to be done. Rick will be talking with Joe Joy about continuing the sampling into the next year because we didn’t have a single flow event over the average annual flow, 6,000 cfs.
Shoreline Inventory & Assessment Project Report
The Conservation District canoed the Rock Creek this last week to assess the 12 ˝ miles of the creek.
Instream Flow Public Meeting
Website Status
Mark Jerome will be meeting with Walt on May 28 to go over the new 2514 website.
Assessment Report
Rick reported that he took all of the suggestions sent in by the Planning Unit members and updated the report. CD’s and/or a hard copy were distributed to the Planning Unit for review. Any comments or corrections need to be sent to Rick, for incorporation into the draft document, by the end of June.
Water Quality/Quantity Recommendations
A. Projected Future Growth
1. Some municipal water systems may not have enough water to meet projected future growth.
(a) Approve water rights for ground water in all sub-basins until water use equals the estimated ground infiltration for that sub-basin
(NOT supported; 40% against, modifications) DELETE
Develop an Ad-Hoc Committee to discuss issues
Ad-Hoc Committee suggestions—
*Look at ways to partition the upper and lower watershed
- 80% of the watershed is above rock creek.
-500 acre-feet per year…divided at rock creek upper and lower based on projected use…..
- Doug Allen proposed to divide it 50/50…250 acre- feet per year for upper watershed and 250 acre- feet per year for the lower watershed
*Coordination with WRIA 55/57, set up an ad-hoc committee
(b) Allowances for commercial and industrial uses shall include an evaluation of consumptive water use
(Generally supported) DELETE
(i) Recommendation to the land use permitting authority on appropriate land use zoning based on the consumptive water use.
(Generally supported, modifications) DELETE
DELETED RECOMMENDATIONS
Apply for water rights through current process (deleted 3/23/04)
2. What are the impacts of projected growth over the next 20 to 50 years?
Recommendation(s):
(a) Divide watershed into separate sub-basins for management (conditioned rights associated with basin situation).
CHANGE
Divide the watershed into two sub-basins for management purposes to meet the goals of the watershed.
· Upper watershed would be above Rock Creek confluence
· Lower watershed would be below Rock Creek
i)Upper Hangman sub-basin and Rock Creek sub-basin should be considered to have “no-impact” on stream flow.
(NOT supported) DELETE
(b) Limitations should be placed on housing density.
(Generally supported, modifications) DELETE**
(c) Limitations should be placed on the proliferation Domestic Exempt Wells
(Some support, modifications) DELETE**
**DELETE b and c as they are and CHANGE to:
Any proposed changes in the County Comprehensive Plan, that affect housing density, should be dependent on water availability as described in the Watershed Management Plan.
(d) A reserve should be established for domestic exempt wells (based on future need).
A reserve of 500 acre-feet per year should be established for domestic exempt wells
(Generally supported)
i)partitioned sub-basin information….ad-hoc committee
(e) Domestic wells should be exempt from instream flow recommendation/ruling. (NOT supported, possible modifications) DELETE
(f) Domestic wells should not be exempt from instream flow recommendation/ruling. (Generally supported, modifications) DELETE
(g) No new domestic exempt wells will be approved by land use authorities without a mitigation plan. Any rulemaking for Instream Flow will include this provision.
(NOT supported, possible modifications) DELETE
(h) Assess HB 1338 impacts to watershed planning.
Supported as is
(i) No new exempt wells will be approved by land use authorities without a mitigation plan. Any rulemaking for Instream Flow will include this provision.
(Generally supported, modifications) DELETE
Homework
The Planning Unit was asked to work up proposed implementations for the recommendations in Section 3 - Habitat & Land Use.
Next Meeting
The next regular WRIA meeting will be Tuesday, June 8 from 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. The meeting for July was set for July 8, 2004 from 9:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. Both meetings will be held at the SCCD offices.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:16 p.m.