Hangman (Latah) Creek Watershed

Planning Unit Meeting

Spokane County Conservation District

August 17, 2004 

Chair:              Walt Edelen, Spokane County Conservation District (SCCD)

Present:          Jamie Short, Department of Ecology

Dee Bailey, Coeur d’Alene Tribe

Steve Bortfeld, Hangman Hills Water District            

                        Gary Ostheller

                        Reanette Boese, Spokane County

                        Bill Rickard, City of Spokane, Environmental Programs

            Bruce Carmack

            Rick Noll, SCCD

Jilla Harmon, SCCD

The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. and began with introductions.  A meeting agenda with copies of the July 8, 2004 meeting minutes had been distributed earlier.   Walt asked for any comments or corrections.   Bill Rickard asked that the site of the “unusual discharge” on page 2 be identified in the minutes.  It was noted that the location is Rattlers Run Creek near the Waste Water Treatment Plant.

Minutes were approved with changes noted.

Minutes

Multipurpose Storage Scope

Chris Pitre of Golder Assoc. joined the meeting via conference call to discuss the memo of August 12 regarding the WRIA 56 storage assessment direction.  The memo included a summary of concepts, , and a storage assessment matrix for the Planning Unit to use to put in budget percentages.

A question was raised regarding whether or not the wetland restoration option included riparian areas.  Chris stated they are including riparian wetlands and that they would be looking more towards the larger wetland areas, such as Turnbull Wildlife Area and the Marshall Creek area.  The benefits of these areas would only be seen in the lower portion of the basin.  The quantification of the flow benefits is difficult, but the ecological benefit is there too.

Walt asked Chris to go through each of the options to explain the benefits.  Three options received four votes from the Planning Unit members directing Golder to evaluate further (Wetlands, Off-channel catchments and Dams).

Chris asked the Planning Unit if there were any candidates, not currently recommended for further study, that should be studied further.

Bruce Carmack –  Rock Creek should not to be forgotten as a potential for a diversion.  Bruce would also like to make sure that No-Till isn’t completely dropped out.  Need to look at the benefits we are currently receiving from No-Till (saving soil, keeping more moisture in the soil, better crop production). 

Jamie Short, DOE – DOE feels that the diversion issue is an area of interest for further study.

Reanette Boese– Not quite ready to throw out the diversion issue and look a little more at snow fences, but not sure if Golder should do this.

Bill Rickard – Would like to see more on diversions but wants to know the difference between a diversion and a new dam.  Walt provided the explanation that the diversion idea would be taking water from the high flow events and storing it off channel for further management.  The dam idea would be more of a direct holding area on a tributary or main channel. 

Gary Ostheller – Would like to see the off creek diversion looked at more.  He would also like to know if Fish & Wildlife have preferred sections or reaches in Hangman and Rock Creek that they would like to save.  Gary promoted the idea of a diversion off the main channel of Hangman over to Spangle Creek.

Dee Bailey – Doesn’t have a problem with looking at the diversion issue.

Steve Bortfeld – Doesn’t have a problem with looking at the diversion issue, but was concerned about the storage and the efficiency.  

Walt summarized the comments of the Planning Unit and what we may need in terms of looking into the diversion idea. 

·         Potential locations

·         Maintenance costs

·         How much water can we actually store

·         How much may be lost to evaporation

The Planning Unit would like Chris to provide a little more cost information on (structural and living) snow fence implementation. 

Discussion continued with Chris regarding the storage assessment budget assignments.   Walt asked the Planning Unit members, who haven’t turned in their budget percentages, to complete the budget percentage figure for each option and turn them into Walt by the end of this meeting.

The Planning Unit discussed the artesian well idea and what may be involved to pursue it.

Golder will take the input gathered from today’s meeting, summarize it, and distribute the information in a memo detailing the percentages of the budget that will be spent on various storage and augmentation options. 

Instream Flow Report

The August 2004 DRAFT report of the Hangman (Latah) Creek Instream Flow Assessment and Recommendation Development was distributed to the Planning Unit.   Walt asked the Planning Unit to read over the report and make comments and get the comments back to Walt by August 27^th.

Planning Outlook

Walt distributed an updated timeline for plan completion for review by the Planning Unit.

Walt explained that the current budget for the project will have an estimated $100,000 surplus.  This has been stated before at the beginning of the year.  The money saved is a result of cost efficiency of utilizing the SCCD to conduct the planning.  Walt entertained discussion regarding the use of the funds. The money will not likely be available after December 31 of 2005.

Bill Rickard –    Would like to keep the funds as long as possible.  If we cannot find or agree on a good use, then return the money to DOE  

Bruce Carmack – Wait a few months and see where our money is best spent

Rick Noll – Wait a few months to see how to utilize the money

Jamie Short, DOE – The Planning Unit has a unique opportunity to do something with the extra funds.

Reanette Boese – Wait a while

Gary Ostheller –  If possible would like the money used for studying the connectivity of the aquifers in the upper and lower basin.   .

Dee Bailey – Wait a while

Steve Bortfeld – Wait a while

Walt will contact the Department of Ecology to inform them of the potential amendment needs for the grant.  The Planning Unit would like to wait a couple months to better prioritize the funds.

Implementation Strategies

Water Quantity

A.  Projected Future Growth

1.                   Some municipal water systems may not have enough water to meet projected future growth.

(a)   Future municipal ground water rights should be subject to mitigation (eg. Flow augmentation, aquifer storage)  (revised and approved 3/23/04)   NOTE:  Dependent on the instream flow outcome this may need some clarification.

Strategy: 

§   Department of Ecology

§   Develop a mechanism for the process on how to mitigate 

§   Continuing body/Planning Unit

(b)   Evaluate the potential to purchase or lease, valid current water rights for municipal supply (revised and approved 3/23/04).

Strategy: 

§   Department of Ecology

§   Develop of a mechanism for the process 

§   Continuing body/Planning Unit

(c) Establish municipal reserves for water rights as part of the     instream flow rule.  These water rights must be in compliance  with provisions of HB 1338 (revised and approved 3/23/04).

Strategy: 

§   Continuing body/Planning Unit will work with the Department of Ecology to coordinate with the municipal reserves and the instream flow rule to make sure that they are working with the recommendation in the plan.

(d)   Encourage reclamation, conservation and reuse strategies to increase water available for beneficial uses (revised and approved 3/23/04).

Strategy: 

§   County will be involved

§   SCCD would help, after checking with the board

§   Continuing body/Planning Unit would be one of the initiators

2.                  What are the impacts of projected growth over the next 20to 50 years?

(a)   Divide the watershed into two sub-basins for management purposes to meet the goals of the watershed (revised and approved 5/27/04).

§   Upper watershed would be defined as above Rock Creek confluence

§   Lower watershed would be defined as below Rock Creek confluence

Strategy: 

§   Department of Ecology

§   Managing the water rights as it pertains to the instream flow for what, Dr. Buchanan identified as, municipalities getting their water from the deep aquifers in the upper part of the watershed which is disconnected from the creek above Rock Creek whereas below Rock Creek where the creek and the aquifer appear to be disconnected.

(b)   Any proposed changes in the County Comprehensive Plan, that affects housing

density, should be dependent on water availability as described in the Watershed Management Plan. (Revised and approved 5/27/04 – revision and combination of previous recommendations b & c).

Strategy:   

§   Continuing body/Planning Unit will develop water availability information

§   Before County changes the housing density in the Comprehensive Plan they need a better understanding of the aquifer and water availability

Start here on August 26^th – discussion was not completed----

(c) 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.  (Revised and approved 5/27/04).

Strategy: 

§   Recommendation for instream flow rule with Department of Ecology

§   County would limit water use by domestic exempt wells so that a water right is not 5,000 gallons a day 

Homework

Walt asked the Planning Unit to read over the report and make comments and get the comments back to Walt by August 27^th on the August 2004 DRAFT report of the Hangman (Latah) Creek Instream Flow Assessment and Recommendation Development.

Next Meeting

The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, August 26, 2004, from 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm at the SCCD offices.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:07p.m.