Hangman (Latah) Creek Watershed

Planning Unit Meeting

Spokane County Conservation District

September 21, 2004

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

Present:          Jamie Short, Department of Ecology

Dee Bailey, Coeur d’Alene Tribe

                        Gary Ostheller

                        Reanette Boese, Spokane County

                        Bill Rickard, City of Spokane, Environmental Programs

Bruce Carmack

            Jilla Harmon, SCCD

AGENDA:

The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. and began with introductions.  A meeting agenda with copies of the September 7, 2004 meeting minutes were distributed for review.   Walt asked for any comments or corrections.  Minutes were approved as is.

Minutes

Announcements/Open Discussion/Public Comment

Bruce Carmack reported on an article in the September 17, 2004 Capital Press Newspaper.  The article, “Washington Making Progress in Water-Storage Projects”, talked about The Clallam Dungeness Valley Agricultural Water Users Association, Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study and the first-phase study to restore fish habitat in Manastash Creek in Kittitas County water-storage projects.

Multipurpose Storage Update

Walt reported that Golder Associates is continuing to work on the project and there doesn’t seem to be any further delays.  According to Chris Pitre the Planning Unit should see a product by the end of September.

Bill Rickard asked if Golder Associates would be able to do additional work on reforestation as a storage element (if the money was available).

The Planning Unit discussed and agreed to ask Chris Pitre, at Golder Associates, if they had time after finishing the current project to conduct this additional work.  

Walt stated that he will contact Chris Pitre, at Golder Associates to discuss this potential work.  He will ask Chris to develop a brief scope of work complete with budget.  Walt will submit this to the planning unit when available..

Instream Flow Report

Walt reported that the Instream Flow Report had been turned in to The Department of Ecology on September 3, 2004 and he has been working with them on additional required tasks to close the grant.  All the additional documents they requested have been sent and Walt will send out the final version to the Planning Unit members this week.

Walt reported that he talked with Cathy Hubbard at Department of Ecology regarding the surplus Phase 3 money and what the Planning Unit could utilize it.  Ecology stated that it was dependent on the type of activity.  They were willing to work with the Planning Unit as much as possible (within the statute of the law).

Implementation Strategies

Walt and Reanette reported on the recommendation coordination meeting between WRIA 55/57 and WRIA 56.  Walt met with Reanette Boese and Rob Lindsay regarding the recommendations to determine areas of agreement between the plans.  Domestic exempt wells and other water quantity issues were discussed.

One area of agreement regarded the evaluation of domestic exempt wells and a suggested reduction below the current level of 5,000 gallons per day limit.  Reanette explained that when you go to get a building permit, you dig a well and get your driller to test it and say how many gallons you are going to get.  You then take it into Regional Health and they say whether it is ok to build if you have one gallon per minute coming out of your well.

WRIA 55/57 is suggesting that there should be a study to see if one gallon a minute is sufficient.

Reanette stated that another recommendation from WRIA 55/57 is a little more vague--Is there some way of making it so that in Spokane County, domestic exempt wells don’t have the right to exceed 5,000 gallons per day. 

Walt read the actual issue and recommendation from WRIA 55/57

ISSUE:  Should the County adopt policies, which limit the maximum daily withdrawals from? individual domestic exempt wells?

 RECOMMENDATION:  Evaluate policies that will limit withdrawals to less than 5,000 gallons per day.

 RECOMMENDATION:  Request County, City and/or Regional Health District to re-evaluate the quantity of water necessary, from domestic exempt wells, before a building permit is issued (currently 1 gallon per minute,)

Gary Ostheller had asked earlier in the meeting about what action plan will be done to see that domestic exempt wells are handled the same way in all the WRIA’s.  Walt asked Gary what he would like to see as a recommendation regarding domestic exempt wells.  Gary said that he would like to see that domestic exempt wells were permitted with a restriction on ground water use during the critical period (such as when the instream flow is below 15 cfs.).

The Planning unit discussed this issue at great length and made changes to the recommendation on page 2 of Section 1: Water Quantity, #2 (b) and (c)….

The Planning Unit discussed the need to look at domestic exempt wells and their impact on the stream.  The Planning Unit talked about the reserve recommendations.

Walt read what 55/57 had developed as a recommendation:

Land use regulators are encouraged to consider available ground water resources when establishing minimal parcel sizes in areas where exempt wells will be the main source of domestic water in an effort to avoid future water shortages.

Bill said he was considering that maybe we should change the wording to a requirement that a change in housing density be directly mitigated.  The County would have to mitigate for or see that mitigation is done before a change can be done in housing density in the Comprehensive Plan.   Although, if we did that we would be out of sync with 55/57 and do we want to do that?

Bill would also like to see a very similar wording in regards to housing density, as it is dealt with in the Comprehensive Plan, be put into the Water Quality section to try to address non-point source contributions to the creek.   Housing density has an impact on non-point source loading.  Do we want to do that?

Jaime Short asked if new domestic wells were metered.  The Planning Unit discussed the metering issue and decided not to go near the metering issue.

Getting back to Gary’s concern, Bill suggested that we radically change the recommendation 2, c as we currently have it.  He stated that we should get rid of the reserve issue for domestic exempt wells and adopt 55/57 recommendation where they evaluate impact and also evaluate the potential to fix it with metering and/or reducing the allowable usage. 

The end result would be that 2,c then addresses currently existing domestic exempt wells, or wells in the future, that are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.   Change 2, b so that any change in housing density under the Comprehensive Plan would require mitigation for domestic exempt wells.

Walt read the 55/57 recommendation regarding the quantity of water necessary from a domestic exempt well before a building permit is issued.

WRIA 55/57 RECOMMENDATION:  Request County, City and/or Regional Health District to evaluate for quantity of water necessary, currently 1 gallon per minute, from domestic exempt well before a building permit is issued.

Walt asked the Planning Unit what they wanted to do.  A recommendation can be made today or do we want to table it and think on it until the next meeting?  The Planning Unit agreed to DELETE 2, c and work on the wording for 2, b and the new recommendation for 2, c.

The recommendation under Water Quantity, A, 2 (b) states:

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 recommendation b & c).

Suggested CHANGE--Should be dependent on water availability estimates currently supplied by the Watershed Management Plan per subbasin.

Bill Rickard stated, for the record, that he doesn’t really care for addressing it in this matter, but he is not going to stand in the way of it going forward at this time.  Walt said that he would work on the wording and bring it to the Planning

Walt read other management plan reports from Nisqually, Chehalis, and Chambers Clover Watershed Management Plans and what each of the Planning Unit’s had submitted regarding the same problem.

Walt distributed updated, as of 09/07/04, Recommendation documents to the Planning Unit for review.

Section 1: Water Quantity on page 6 Walt noted a verbage change under D, (b) For the benefit of determining water interchange rates and public information, establish a new permanent gauging station between the upper watershed and lower watershed (approved as is 6/08/04)

Section 2: Water Quality there were no changes or modifications

Section 3: Habitat & Land Use changes in red were discussed.

            Recommendation:

(a) Approved with changes—All development and construction proposals within the watershed   should have a SEPA review and be reviewed by the Continuing body/Planning Unit for compatibility with the watershed management plan.

Strategy: 

§   Continuing body/Planning Unit

§   Local Planning Departments

(b) Approved—All County and City Land Use Planning intended for WRIA 56 should be reviewed/coordinated with t he Continuing body/Planning Unit for compatibility with the watershed management plan.

Strategy: 

§   Continuing body/Planning Unit

§   Local Planning Departments

(d) Approved—New commercial, residential, and industrial development within the 100-year flood plain should be required to mitigate for fish and wildlife impact (revised and approved 4/15/04).

Strategy:  (Approved 09/07/04)

§   Current Shoreline Update Committee (consisting of local jurisdictions)

Start with this recommendation at the October 5, 2004 meeting.

(e) All streamside/shoreline land uses (eg.  Agricultural, urban, residential) subject to the inception of shoreline management shall implement Best Management Practices (BMP’s) and establish appropriate riparian buffers to protect streamside habitat and water quality (revised and approved 4/15/04.

Grant Application

There are no applications for the Planning Unit to review.  The application process is open with Department of Ecology through November 1, 2004 and if the Planning Unit has any possible projects that pertain to Water Quality to let Walt know.

Spokane County Conservation Futures Program 2003

Walt distributed a document from the Spokane County Department of Parks website on the conservation Futures At Work Program.  The Planning Unit will review this document and be ready to discuss at the October 5 meeting.

Homework

Planning Unit is to review Conservation Futures document that was distributed and be prepared to discuss at the October 5 meeting.

Next Meeting

October meetings will be October 5, 2004 and October 19, 2004, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at the SCCD offices.