Meeting Minutes
September 16, 1999
2:30 P.M.
University of Idaho McClure Hall #304
Craig Benjamin (Vice-Chair, WSU), Pam Palmer
(Moscow), Sue Hinz (Pullman), Loreca Stauber (Latah
County), Les Wigen (Whitman County),
Mark Workman (City of Pullman)
2. Reports and Announcements:
Juliet
McKenna introduced Diane Hopster, a UI graduate student working with Jim
Osiensky on the PBAC grant.
A) PBAC Budget Review, Peggy
Hammel, IWRRI
The
budget for the Osiensky-Keller project will be tracked separately from the PBAC
operating budget. Peggy Hammel
distributed 1-page summaries of each budget generated by the
University of Idaho accounting system. Monthly updates are generated
automatically and will be included with PBAC member minutes packages. The Osiensky-Keller project has a budget of
$58,324 for FY00 (7/1/99-6/30/00) of which $10,885 has been expended for
purchase of 10 data loggers. Kent
Keller at WSU will receive $21,324. P.
Hammel noted that both UI and WSU have agreed to waive all overhead charges in
administration of this budget.
Subtracting the Osiensky-Keller budget and PBAC expenses incurred to
date, there is a balance of $29,068 in the PBAC operating budget for FY00. PBAC expenses incurred to date include 80
hours to Steve Gill.
P. Hammel explained that money pledged to the PBAC
for FY00 appeared in the FY99 budget because she received the May 1999 meeting
minutes approving the funds in June (during FY99), and proceeded with
increasing the budget at that time. J.
Becker wanted to know which entities have paid their fee. P. Hammel would furnish that information for
the next meeting but only a few entities have provided the money so far. She noted that it is standard operating
procedure for the UI to add money to budgets based on the anticipation of
receiving the income.
[Note: As of
October 6, 1999 only Whitman County and Pullman have paid their dues. A follow-up letter explaining increased dues
and another invoice will be sent out to the remaining Entities after the
October meeting.]
J. McKenna presented a summary of FY96 through FY99 PBAC operating costs and
projected costs for FY00. Annual
operating costs were approximately $33,500 in FY96 and FY97 and were $28,000
and $26,700 in FY98 and FY99, respectively.
P. Hammel noted that IWRRI did not charge their $3,500 administrative
fee in either FY98 or FY99, but the fee will be charged at the end of FY00. The projected operating budget for FY00 is
$30,800.
B)
EPA Wetlands Grant
Following is a summary of
the status of this grant provided in writing and at the meeting by T.
Townsend. The two local Soil and Water
Conservation Districts and PBAC had submitted a 104(b)(3) grant last year that the
applicants believed was very supportive of the local situation and meshed
nicely with the TMDL/NPDES programs for Paradise Creek. The grant was not approved and PBAC requested a meeting with EPA personnel
to review the reasons for rejection the grant and how to avoid similar problems
in future submissions. A meeting was
held at UI on August 19, 1999 with EPA personnel involved in the Idaho grant
program: Mr. John Olson, Boise EPA Operations
Office, and Mr. Lee Deneker, Aquatic Resources Unit Manager, Seattle. There is a EPA operations office in Lacey,
WA that is available for assistance to Washington applicants. The meeting was
informal and conducted as a questions and answers session about the Wetlands
Development Grant Program and the upcoming FY2000 grant applications.
The rationale of the
Wetlands Development Grant Program is to provide financial assistance for
wetland protection/ enhancement, management, or restoration. Funding may not be used for the operation or
maintenance of existing wetlands programs.
The monies allocated to Region 10 (AK, WA,OR, and ID) are about $1
million and are currently equally divided among each state (25% to each). This arrangement seemingly has worked well
for Idaho according to Mr. Olson. A
suggestion was made that since most of Idaho and eastern Washington had lesser
amounts of wetlands than coastal areas, then any development in these inland
areas would lead to proportionally greater damage or loss.
In reviewing the reasons
why the original grant request from PBAC and the conservations districts was
not funded, it appears that there were some misunderstandings and errors on the
part of applicants and EPA. Based on
these discussions, T. Townsend feels that this time the grant request would
likely be approved. Mr. Bill MacDonald
of the US Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, informed the group of the
existence of some COE funding programs.
An overview of these programs is available from Idaho Water Resources
Research Institute on the University of Idaho campus.
T. Townsend will followup
with both Palouse and Latah Soil and Water Conservation Districts and determine
they are planning on reapplying. The
deadline for FY00 funding is October 15, 1999.
[Note: According to Ken Stinson of Latah
Conservation District, the District is not going to apply this year, but would
strongly support an application from another local group, and is considering
applying next year. Vicki Rosgen of
Palouse Conservation District could not be reached, but it is not likely that
they are pursuing this grant either.
C) Community Relations
J. McKenna asked if the PBAC is opposed to having a
website created. It was agreed that J.
McKenna will look into how this can be accomplished, possibly through an
Environmental Science intern.
L. Kirkland has a letter from Gary Riedner, Moscow
City Supervisor, sent to Loreca Stauber, Latah County Commissioner, requesting
a timeslot for the PBAC at the next quarterly breakfast meeting. J. McKenna will followup with L. Stauber to
determine when and where the meeting will occur. The PBAC will present findings from the 1998 Annual Report,
inform them of the new Osiensky-Keller project, and discuss the upcoming
revisions to the Groundwater Management Plan.
D) Other
Mike Nelson of WSU
introduced himself. He is a Ph.D.
candidate in Economics, studying renewable and nonrenewable resources and is
interested in water issues on the Palouse and the PBAC. His dissertation will evaluate the best time
to commence with aquifer recharge based on economic considerations. He agreed to make a presentation to PBAC at
a future date.
A) Additional
Funding from IDWR
Roy Mink of IWRRI is making
contacts and presenting the OK proposal to IDWR to attempt to secure an
additional $125,000 over the next three years.
[Note: IDWR has since indicated that the request
for additional funding will have to be presented to the State Legislature
during their next session, which commences in April and IDWR will support the
proposal.]
B) Status of
Data Collection
J. McKenna reported that
she and the graduate students met with operations staff at WSU, UI, Pullman and
Moscow to determine if any wells are available and appropriate for water level
monitoring with the data loggers and to learn about the data collection and
storage system at each facility. UI,
Pullman, and Moscow all have automated data collection systems (SCADA) that
track and store, among other parameters, water level data and pumping data for
each well. WSU tracks this information
manually. All entities are willing to
cooperate in making the data available for this project. As of the meeting, 6 of the 10 data loggers
had been installed in wells. The City
of Moscow has also allotted $2,000 for purchase of two additional data loggers.
A problem encountered in
identifying wells to equip with data loggers is the lack of an access or guide
tube on most municipal wells. Without
an opening at the surface, there is no way to install the data loggers. The City of Moscow is retrofitting all their
wells with guide tubes during routinely scheduled pump maintenance and all
other entities are encouraged to do the same.
In addition, a guide tube should be part of the design of any new
municipal wells in the basin.
C) List of
Deliverables
A final version of the list
of deliverables was distributed. There
were no objections to this list. L.
Kirkland stated that this can now be used in support of the funding requests
made to each of the entities.
4. New Business
A)
Updating Groundwater Management Plan
J. McKenna distributed
copies of each entities’ action plans and a copy of the most recent version of
the PBAC’s goals and objectives, based on discussions and revisions from
1997. Each member is asked to evaluate the progress of
the Entity he/she represents toward completing the listed items in its Action
Plan. Each entity should have been
submitting Action Plan compliance reports to the Committee annually. PBAC members are asked to provide written
comments to address the progress on each Action Item including
appropriate details where possible. If
the action was achieved, provide the approximate year of completion. If the action is ongoing, specify the
progress to date and the expected time-frame for completion. If the goal has not been achieved, explain
the delay or why it may no longer be a feasible or relevant goal. Once this is completed, the next step
will be to revise each Action Plan for inclusion in the updated Groundwater
Management Plan.
L. Kirkland stated that he thinks the
top priorities for the basin should be to determine the recharge and define the
boundaries of the recharge area. He
also suggested PBAC create incentives for switching pumping from the deep to
shallow aquifer (e.g. for bookkeeping purposes, pumping from the shallow is
equal to half the volume from the deep aquifer). Finally, he reiterated the need to do an economic evaluation of
the projected costs for incremental water from various sources.
B)
Updates on Water-Related Projects
L.
Kirkland stated that he wanted this to be a regular agenda item so that each
entity was aware of water-related projects in the basin.
UI: L. Kirkland stated that UI has fixed the
crack in the casing of Well No. 4 and rebuilt the pump. A bigger pump is needed for their effluent
irrigation because they have expanded beyond the capacity of their original
pump.
Pullman: No one from Pullman was available to provide
an update on the progress of permitting and drilling Pullman’s Well No. 7.
WSU: J. Becker stated that WSU will not move to
an effluent irrigation system any time in the near future unless a significant
amount of capital becomes available for the project. Well No.7 is back on-line after swedging seemed to have fixed the
sand problem. WSU has both high and low
pressure zones and would like to increase the coverage of their high pressure
zone and make several plumbing and piping changes when sufficient money is
available. Well No. 5 (by the airport)
is scheduled to be on-line sometime in the future. S. King asked about the progress of their well-head protection
program. J. Becker stated that it is
nearly complete.
Moscow: T.
Scallorn stated that Moscow has money in FY00 budget to purchase land behind
Staples at the state line for their newest well location. Moscow has also recalibrated all their flow meters
(see Item C., below).
C)
City of Moscow Increases in Pumping
L.
Kirkland said that PBAC would like to see an investigation into the increases
in Moscow’s pumping since about 1985, and reasons why pumping has exceeded the
voluntary pumping limits. T. Scallorn
stated that in the last 3 years, flow meters on all wells have been
recalibrated and several measured high.
In addition, water quality complaints from customers force the City to
frequently flush fire hydrants. The
filtration system used to reduce iron in water from the Wanapum (shallow) wells
also requires backwashing every three days or so. T. Scallorn will prepare a report addressing these issues for the
next meeting.
D)
Conservation Coordinator
L.
Kirkland asked Committee members whether they are interested in seeing a
Conservation Coordinator position reintroduced. J. Becker stated that it was a good idea, but questioned whether
funding is available.
2:30 PM
Thursday, October 21, 1999
University of Idaho
McClure Hall Room 304
Respectfully Submitted,
Juliet M.
McKenna
Executive Secretary/Technical Advisor
These minutes are submitted in FINAL form and have
been approved by the Committee.