Meeting Summary Planning Unit WRIA 56 Hangman (Latah) Creek Local Watershed Plan February 9, 2004 Chair: Walt Edelen, Spokane County Conservation District (SCCD) Present: Gary Ostheller, Fairfield Triangle Grange Reanette Boese, Spokane County Rick Noll, SCCD Bill Rickard, City of Spokane Jamie Short, Ecology Volunteer Steve Bortfeld, Hangman Valley Water District Jilla Harmon, SCCD Minutes Walt asked for any corrections, etc of the January 20, 2004 meeting minutes. Rick Noll stated that the there should be a change under the section for water quality sampling. There were some problems with the pH meters. A quorum was not present for this meeting (>60% of voting members). Therefore, these minutes will not be approved until the next Planning Unit Meeting. Open Discussion/Public Comment – No Comment Walt and Rick will participate in the TMDL internal kick-off meeting with Ecology and EPA tomorrow. The meeting is designed to provide coordination between agencies for the project. A later meeting in March will be set to form a workgroup and inform the public. The first meetings are scheduled for March 24th in Fairfield at the Fairfield Community Center. A second meeting will be conducted in the Marshall Creek area on March 25th. The site is yet to be determined. Ecology has approved the contract. Walt had to modify due dates to the original document. Ecology will print out the final document and send it to Walt. Walt stated that he would like to begin advertising for consultant contracting bids so that we can have a consultant on board by April. The Planning unit was asked to look over the document Walt distributed and e-mail comments and suggestions to Walt before the next meeting on February 17th. Not available yet. Should be ready for the February 17th meeting Recommendation h) All new water rights should include water conservation measures if not otherwise addressed by Ecology or Health Department regulations. There was some discussion regarding the following information regarding the language that is placed into every new certificate. Tracy Rehwald, from Ecology, reported that the following language is used by Ecology in every new certificate. “Use of water under this authorization shall be contingent upon the water right holder’s utilization of up-to-date water conservation practices and maintenance of efficient water delivery systems consistent with established regulation requirements and facility capabilities.” There was some discussion regarding whether this needs to be removed completely from the recommendation list or include wording on “enforcement”. The workgroup was asked whether or not they would like to keep or remove the language. Reannette Boese – would like to think about it, but not sure we can enforce it Gary Ostheller – leave it alone Steve Bortfeld - remove Bill Rickard - remove Rick Noll – remove Reanette suggested that we leave for now but before final document, it may be one that we want to delete. Tracy also sent information regarding adjudication that the Planning Unit discussed at the January meeting. The verbiage has been added to section e) Actual Water Use/Allocation in the Basin, i) 1, b--A petition should be filed for general adjudication of water rights in the basin. The question of petition procedure was asked. Walt reported that an entity or group of landowners must first file the petition with Ecology. Tracy also sent information on when to file an adjudication under the 1997 RCW 90.82: 1. Ecology may initiate one on their own 2. After investigating a petition 3. A general adjudication must be in the public interest 4. Any petitions for adjudication may be from one or more parties claiming water use 5. Can be done by Watershed Planning Units. Ecology must give such Planning Unit adjudication petitions, high priority. ADD - Walt will add that the petition is filed with the Department of Ecology. ADD - Bill Rickard suggested some additional wording should be added such as, “compliance with this language will be determined in a general adjudication.” CHANGE - Bill Rickard suggested that where the word “should” is, that it be changed to “shall”. Under (1) Recommendations a) CHANGE - Urban and growth zones shall be prohibited along streams and and/or frequently flooded areas b) CHANGE - Allowances for commercial and industrial uses shall include an evaluation of consumptive water use § recommendation to the land use permitting authority on appropriate land use zoning based on the consumptive water use § commercial and industrial land uses would be required to mitigate for habitat improvement for zoning within shoreline management areas o mitigating one to one for loss of habitat o mitigating one and a half to one for loss and improvement c) CHANGE - Agricultural producers shall develop farm plans, implement BMPs and establish appropriate buffers to protect water quality ADD – Habitat and Land Use to first page under List of Issues Homework WQ Sampling
Ecology WQ Assessment
Walt & Rick will be meeting with all the city and town councils to explain their water rights situation and provide information on the pending TMDL process. Tonight they will be meeting with the town of Waverly. Rick handed out a copy of a handout that will be used for the meetings. Some changes were noted which Rick will update before distributing at this evenings meeting at Waverly. Reanette would like to review the water rights and contact Rick this afternoon. Bill Rickard suggested that the document be marked as a “draft” document.
Storage Proposal Status
Quarterly Report
Watershed Issues/Recommendations
Habitat/Land Use
Gary asked when does a stream stop being a stream? The County defines a stream as perennial flowing water in excess of 20 cubic feet per second (annual average flow).
Any aditional recommendations need to be sent to Walt before the next meeting.
Open Discussion/Public Comment - No Comment
The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 at 10:00am – 12:00pm here at the SCCD offices. The March meeting is set for Tuesday, March 9,2004 at 10:00am – 12:00pm.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 pm.