HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-2005-083 Supporting the approval of Watershed PlanA RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. R-2005-83
of the Yakima City Council supporting the approval of the Watershed Plan
by the Board of County Commissioners of Yakima County, Kittitas
County, Benton County, and Klickitat County; and requesting that the
Board of County Commissioners of Yakima County, Kittitas County,
Benton County, and Klickitat County convene in joint session pursuant to
RCW 90.82.130, to consider and approve the proposed Watershed Plan.
WHEREAS, the State of Washington legislature found in RCW 90.82.010 that the local
development of watershed plans for managing water resources and for protecting existing water
rights is vital to both state and local interests, and that the local development of these plans
serve vital local interests by placing it in the hands of people, and the legislature believed it
necessary for units of local government throughout the state to be actively engaged in the
orderly development of these watershed plans; and
WHEREAS, watershed planning under chapter 90.82 RCW was initiated for the multi -
Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) for the entire Yakima River Basin as a single planning
area, in recognition of the integrated nature of the water supply and delivery systems of the
Yakima River Basin, and with the involvement of all counties, the largest city in each WRIA, the
largest water supply utility obtaining the largest quantity of water in each WRIA, and including
the tribes if they affirmatively accept the invitation; and
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima operates the municipal water supply and an irrigation
utility for the City of Yakima and obtains water from the Naches WRIA, No. 38; and
WHEREAS, the duly elected members of the City Council are responsible to the citizens
of Yakima for managing and protecting existing water rights held by the City of Yakima; and
WHEREAS, the Yakima River Basin Watershed Planning Unit has completed a locally
developed and comprehensive water resources management plan for the Yakima River Basin
dated January 2003 (the "Watershed Plan"); and
WHEREAS, the Watershed Plan requires the joint approval of the Board of County
Commissioners of Yakima County, Kittitas County, Benton County, and Klickitat County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Kittitas County has proposed
revisions to the Watershed Plan and to the future governance process for the management of
water resources in the Yakima River Basin; and
WHEREAS, those proposed revisions by the Board of County Commissioners of Kittitas
County are seen as narrowing the scope and diminishing the role of the other initiating
governments in the enhancement, management and protection of existing resources, including
the water rights of the members; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA:
Section 1. The City Council supports the approval of the Watershed Plan by the
Board of County Commissioners of Yakima County, Kittitas County, Benton County, and
Klickitat County.
Section 2. The City Council hereby formally requests that the Board of County
Commissioners of Yakima County, Kittitas County, Benton County, and Klickitat County
convene in joint session pursuant to RCW 90.82.130, to consider and approve the proposed
Watershed Plan.
Section 3. However, in the event that the Board of County Commissioners of Yakima
County, Kittitas County, Benton County, and Klickitat County, convening in joint session, return
the Watershed Plan to the Planning Unit for consideration of the proposed Kittitas County
revisions, the City Council requests that the Board of County Commissioners of Yakima County,
Kittitas County, Benton County, and Klickitat County specifically identify and affirm the
importance of the continued involvement of the cities, the irrigation districts, and the lead
agency as essential members for the future oversight of the planning and implementation of
water resources in the Yakima River Basin.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 7th day of June, 2.05.
�f. ,
ATTEST:
City Clerk
2
Paul P.
eorge, May
Executive Summary
The Watershed Plan
provides a "road
map" developed
under local
lug rd ZIP.
P�._ 9_ Li.D
The Yakima River
Basin Watershed
Planning Unit
Zl�lerLtZ�Zea jt Jt (,
goals.
TriCountyWaterResourceAgency/2-01-173/watershedplan/execsum.doc
January 6, 2003
Executive Summary
Watershed
l Tl TT__ formed '
The Yakima River Basin vvatershed manning Unit was formed in
1998 to develop a comprehensive watershed management plan
for the Yakima
axima R ever Basin. The Planning Unit
represents local
governments, citizens and landowners, irrigation districts,
conservation districts, State agencies and others. With
assistance from the Tri -County Water Resources Agency
(TCWRA), the Planning Unit is pleased to present this
Watershed Management Plan for the Yakima River Basin. The
Watershed Plan provides a "road map" for maintaining and
improving the Basin's economic barn Mannino' responsibly for
expected growth in population, managing water resources for the
long-term, and protecting the Basin's natural resources and fish
runs.
This Watershed Plan was developed under local leadership, using
a grant from the State of Washington under the provisions of the
Watershed Management Act (Chapter 90.82 RCW). During the
four year period for Plan development, landowners, local
governments, the Yakama Nation and state and federal agencies
have continued to work on improving watershed conditions
throughout the Yakima Basin. This planning process provides
additional support and focus for many of these ongoing activities.
The Plan covers the entire Yakima Basin (Exhibit ES -1), with the
exception of the Yakama Nation Reservation. As requested by
the Yakima Nation, the Planning Unit has refrained from
planning with respect to the Reservation. In regards to the
remainder of the Basin, the primary emphasis of this planning
process has been on the mainstem Yakima and Naches River
Systems, where water users rely heavily on the federal Yakima
Irrigation Project. Tributary subbasins are treated in less detail,
and may benefit from additional planning efforts in the future,
guided by local residents and their elected officials.
Objectives for Water Resources Management in the
Yakima Basin
The Yakima River Basin Watershed Planning Unit identified
seven goals for balanced management of water resources in the
Yakima Basin. These are:
® Improve the reliability of surface water supply for irrigation
use;
Executive Summary ES -1
Exhibit ES -1
Yakima Basin Features and
Proposed Storage Sites
Explanation
A Proposed New or Expanded Storage Sites
..'„' Yakima Nation Reservation
A/ Yakima River Basin
/‘/ County Lines
A/ Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA)
...:)..1" II.
Yakima River
Basin, WA
IN
60000 0 60000 120000 180000 Feet
The actions
recommended were
selected to ensure
n11 so,ron nhiortinoc
are addressed.
The Watershed
Planning Unit
identified two key
issues with respect
to surface water:
reliability of supply
and stream flow.
TriCountyWaterResourceAaency/2-01-173/watershedplan/execsum.doc
January 6, 2993
® Provide for growth in municipal, rural domestic and
industrial demand;
n Improve str �1 for all ;tb ph^
V 111.7111 eaiii 11 ivv A lvr all uses vY ilio emph iluOi.J vii
improving fish habitat;
LI Maintain properly functioning habitat and enhance
degraded habitat;
U Protect, improve and sustain ground water quantity and
pumping levels of aquifers for the benefit of current and
future use;
LI Protect surface and ground water from contamination;
LI Maintain economic prosperity by providing an adequate
water supply for all uses.
The actions considered and recommended by the Planning
Unit were carefully selected to ensure all of these seven
objectives are addressed as a joint program.
Water Supply and Flow Management
The Planning Unit recommends a strategy for surface water
management and a strategy for ground water management.
Surface Water Management
Most of the water used in the agricultural sector within the
Yakima Basin comes from surface water resources. The
Yakima Irrigation Project, managed by the federal Bureau of
Reclamation, provides 'die largest share of surface water to
farmers in areas served by the mainstem Yakima and Naches
River systems, and also provides water to the City of Yakima
and some other uses. The mainstem system is the primary
focus of the surface water management section of this Plan.
Managing this system to provide adequate and reliable water
supplies and to provide stream flows needed by fish species
presents an on-going challenge.
These two issues are closely related, and managing them
jointly presents a key challenge for the Yakima Basin. To
meet this challenge, the Planning Unit identified and reviewed
three alternative approaches to managing surface water
resources. These included reliance on water -use efficiency and
transfers, medium storage enhancement, and major storage
enhancement.
Executive Summary ES -3
Only a major
enhancement of the
Basin's water
storage capacity can
offer the needed
improvements in
water supply
reliability, while
simultaneously
permitting
significant
improvements in
stream flow
management.
Substantial
investment in
infrastructure is
needed to provide
significant, long
term benefits for the
region's residents,
the regional and
state economy, and
endangered fish.
The preferred
alternative is
consistent with, and
supportive of
YRBWEP.
TriCountyWaterResourceAgency/2-01-173/watershedplan/execsum.doc
January 6, 2003
The Planning Unit recommends Alternative I-1, "Major
Storage Enhancement, with Targeted Improvements in Water
Use Efficiency and Additional Actions." Only a major
enhancement of the Basin's water storage capacity can offer
the needed improvements in water supply reliability, while
simultaneously permitting significant improvements in stream
flow management. Potential environmental impacts
associated with storage enhancement are very reasonable, in
comparison with the benefits. Storage sites are available that
are either offstream or involve enlargement of facilities at
existing storage sites. Therefore, enhancement of the Basin's
storage capacity will not involve new blockage of salmon runs.
Under this Alternative, stored water should not be used to
expand irrigation beyond those lands already entitled to water
from the Yakima Irrigation Project.
The major storage alternative will be expensive, with
estimates ranging from $1.07 billion to $2.58 billion,
depending on the mix of projects involved. However, the
Planning Unit believes that substantial investment in the
Basin's water resources infrastructure is needed to provide
significant, long term benefits for the region's residents, the
regional and state economy, and endangered fish. A critical
element in implementing this approach will be seeking the
necessary funding, from a combination of federal, state and
local sources.
A number of individual storage projects were identified that
could be combined in implementing the recommended
alternative. Projects that have been proposed at various
times include Black Rock Reservoir, Wymer Reservoir,
enlargement of the existing Bumping Lake, and modifications
to existing facilities at Kachess and Cle Elum Lakes. The
costs and benefits vary for these different projects. The
Planning Unit does not intend to select or recommend any one
project site. Further work will be needed by the various
organizations involved in moving forward on storage
initiatives, to refine information on the feasibility, permitting,
cost, funding sources and other factors.
With regard to water use efficiency, transfers, and other
surface water management actions, the preferred alternative
is intended to be consistent with, and supportive of the federal
Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project (YRBWEP).
The preferred alternative includes extensive modifications to
Executive Summary ES -4
TriCounty WaterResourceAgency/2-01-173/watershedplan/execsum.doc
January 6, 2003
irrigation systems to improve water use efficiency and reduce
diversions. However, as shown by the analysis in this Plan
document, the water-uCe efficiency measures and other
provisions of `inrWEP cannot by themselves meet the
challenge of improving water supply reliability and instream
flows simultaneously. To do this, additional storage capacity
is also needed.
Because of its lead role in managing storage projects and
funding water -use efficiency under YRBWEP, the Bureau of
Reclamation will be a major partner with local governments
and irrigation districts in implementing the recommended
altPrnntivP
The State of Washington, through its respective agencies,
should also work collaboratively with the other involved
parties to help focus and carry out the recommended
alternative. Governor Gary Locke has indicated support for
enhanced storage in the Yakima Basin on several occasions.
Focused State support, coordinated across agencies, will be
essential in carrying through the recommended alternative.
At the outset of the watershed planning process, the Initiating
Governments (TCWRA) determined that the plan would not
involve recommending minimum instream flows be adopted
into State law. The primary reason was that target flows
established by the U.S. Congress under YRBWEP were
already in place for the mainstem system, and are used in
operating the Bureau of Reclamation facilities.
This decision was revisited periodically during the planning
process. In response to the availability of new funding
($300,000) for setting instream flows in year 2001, the TCWRA
and Planning Unit again considered this issue. It was deemed
that the amount of funding available and the time frame
required by the State (completion concurrent with completion
of this Watershed Plan) were inadequate to enter into this
arena. The original decision was therefore confirmed.
Ground Water Management
Although the largest quantities of water used in the Yakima
Basin are from surface sources, ground water is a key source of
supply for many municipal, industrial and domestic uses. In
addition, ground water serves as either a primary or
supplemental supply for irrigation in many areas, and is
Executive Summary ES -5
Ground water
alternatives address
issuance of new
water rights only.
Existing water
rights are not
affected.
Alternative 11-2
strikes an
appropriate balance
between the need for
water supply, the
need to protect the
Basin's ground
water resources, and
the need to manage
stream flows.
Ground water alone
cannot meet the
Planning Unit's
objectives.
Enhancement of
surface water
storage is also
needed.
TriCountyWaterResourceAgency/2-01-173/watershedplan/execsum.doc
January 6, 2003
particularly important in some tributary subbasins that do not
have access to the mainstem Yakima Irrigation Project.
Ground water and surface water resources may be
interconnected in some locations, which gives rise to
management challenges.
At this time a major study of the ground water systems of the
Yakima Basin is underway, under the terms of a
Memorandum of Agreement among Ecology, the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Yakama Nation. The U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) is carrying out this study, which is expected to
be completed in year 2007.
The Watershed Planning Unit recognizes that detailed
planning for ground water would be premature prior to
completion of the USGS study. Therefore the alternatives
defined and evaluated for management of ground water
resources are very general at this time, and focus on providing
policy direction for management of ground water after the
USGS study is completed. The Planning Unit defined four
alternative approaches to managing ground water resources.
These alternatives address issuance of new water rights only.
Existing water rights are not affected and will continue to be
covered under the provisions of existing State law. The
alternatives range from extensive development of new ground
water supplies to prohibition on development of new supplies.
The Planning Unit recommends Alternative II -2, "Limit New
Ground Water Development to Selected Uses," as the
preferred alternative. This alternative strikes an appropriate
balance between the need for water supply the need to protect
the Basin's ground water resources for long-term, sustainable
uses, and the need to manage stream flows in those areas
where surface and ground waters are interconnected.
Ground water alone cannot meet the Planning Unit's
objectives with regard to water supply and economic
prosperity. Therefore, this recommendation is made with the
recognition that enhancement of surface water storage is also
needed (see above).
In areas served by the Yakima Irrigation Project the Planning
Unit identifies a preference for meeting the need for
agricultural irrigation from surface water supplies while
reserving new development of ground water for other uses,
Executive Summary ES -6
The recommended
alternative also
includes
management
techniques to
prevent long term
declines in ground
water levels.
TriCountyWaterResourceAgency/2-01-173/watershodplan/execsurn.doc
January 6, 2003
including but not limited to growth in municipal, industrial
and domestic needsl. There are two main reasons for this
recommendation. First, water needed for these purposes must
be of high quality, and treatment to meet state and federal
drinking water standards is typically more costly for surface
water than for ground water. Second, the quantities required
for municipal, industrial and domestic uses are small in
comparison with agricultural needs. Since the Basin's aquifers
may be subject to depletion if over -pumped, reserving ground
water for these purposes can contribute to long-term viability
of the ground water resource.
Conditions in tributary subbasins without access to Yakima
Irrigation Project water are different, and separate criteria
will need to be developed locally, to fit local needs for new
supplies in these areas.
The likely means of imple-lenting this alternati-,Te xrnh1l j4 TV
be adoption of rules by the Department of Ecology defining the
criteria for issuance of new ground water rights. Any rules
adopted should specifically identify the areas where differing
criteria will apply, since these criteria will be different for
areas with access to Yakima Irrigation Project water,
compared with tributary subbasins. Due to Ecology's
obligations under the Memorandum of Agreement discussed
above, this approach cannot be fully developed or implemented
until the USGS study of Yakima Basin ground water resources
is completed (i.e. after 2007).
The recommended alternative also includes management
techniques to prevent long term declines in ground water
levels. This includes data collection and management;
attention to water -use efficiency; enforcement action against
unauthorized uses; use of voluntary water rights transfers;
and avoidance of pumping practices that would deplete
aquifers over the long term.
Environmental Enhancement (Non -Flow Elements)
This Plan also addresses additional environmental
enhancement actions. Key topics in this regard include
surface water quality, ground water quality, and fish habitat
conditions. For these topics, "alternatives" were not defined as
1 Other uses, such as stock watering, dairies, frost protection, and environmental uses also need attention.
Executive Summary ES -7
The Planning Unit
identified six
priority actions for
surface water
quality.
TriCountyWaterResourceAgency/2-01-173/watershedplan/execsum.doc
January 6, 2003
for water supply and flow management (see above). This is
because the various actions described for improvement of
water quality and fish habitat generally are not mutually
exclusive. Instead, a comprehensive environmental
enhancement program can consist of many interrelated
actions. The ability to carry out these actions depends largely
on the availability of funding, staffing and other resources.
Surface Water Quality Strategy
The Planning Unit identified a wide range of actions related to
improvement of surface water quality. Collectively, these
address forest practices; impacts from agriculture; municipal
and industrial stormwater management; gravel mining;
impacts of recreation sites; wastewater treatment plants; and
management of water storage facilities and ground water. In
addition, the Surface Water Quality Strategy identifies actions
involving coordination of agencies engaged in water quality
activities; improving the information base for water quality
decisions; and addressing water -quality standards to ensure
they reflect natural background conditions.
Within this overall context, the Planning Unit identified six
priority actions for surface water quality:
❑ Improve irrigation management;
❑ Improve crop land management;
U Address livestock impacts;
U Improve interagency coordination;
U Improve understanding of water -quality cause -and -effect
relationships; and,
❑ Expand water -quality monitoring activities.
The Planning Unit recommends that the Surface Water
Quality Strategy be used by local governments, private sector
organizations, and State agencies as they propose and fund
activities to improve water quality.
Management of Ground Water Quality
As noted above, many communities in the Yakima Basin rely
on ground water for their drinking water supplies. In general,
the large and medium-sized public water systems have the
ability to adequately manage and protect ground water quality
as it pertains to their supplies. However, small water systems
Executive Summary ES -8
Six management
objectives were
identified for
ground water
quality.
Five objectives for
protection and
enhancement of fish
habitat were
identified.
TriCountyWaterResourceAgency/2-01-173/watershedplan/execsum.doc
January 6, 2003
and individual households more susceptible to problems from
ground water contamination. Therefore, the Watershed Plan
emphasizes protection of ground water supplies located
uuLSlue the service uiew, 0flarge water pysuuuD
.
Six management objectives were identified, with specific
actions listed under each one. The six objectives are:
1. Improve public understanding and awareness of issues
related to drinking water quality;
2. Assess susceptibility of ground water supplies to
contamination on a regional basis;
T 1 'l'� . detect
�_ 7 _L___ _ _L_ L_ground ;. Improve aon�uy to detect an=d monitor impacts w groaund
water supplies;
4. Improve local wellhead protection programs;
5. Minimize impacts of land use activities on ground water
supplies; and,
6. Clean up sources of ground water contamination.
Assuming limited resources will be available to fully
implement the ground water quality strategy Objectives 1 and
2 were assigned the highest priority; Objectives 3 and 4 have a
medium priority; and Objectives 5 and 6 have the lowest
priority. The lead implementer of the ground water strategy is
envisioned to be local health districts in each county, subject to
their funding resources, staff availability, and competing
priorities involving public health.
Fish Habitat Enhancement
The Planning Unit developed a fish habitat enhancement
strategy providing a prioritized approach and list of actions for
consideration by the Yakima Basin Lead Entity for salmon
recovery and by local governments, state agencies and other
organizations as they propose and fund habitat -related
activities. Five objectives for protection and enhancement of
fish habitat were identified in the following priority order:
1. Protect existing high-quality aquatic environments;
2. Protect and enhance fish migration corridors;
3. Enhance downstream reaches and connect associated
floodplains in tributary and mainstem reaches to benefit
fish production;
Executive Summary ES -9
This habitat
strategy can be
integrated with
project review
undertaken by the
local Lead Entity for
salmon recovery.
One of the key
aspects of the
Watershed Planning
process is local
leadership, and this
aspect should be
continued
throughout the
implementation
phase.
TriCountyWaterR esourceAgency/2-01- 173/watershedplan/execsum.doc
January 6, 2003
4. Prioritize enhancement of damaged aquatic habitats that
are still functional; and,
5. Protect existing habitat conditions from further
degradation.
In addition, three programmatic objectives were identified,
without assignment of priorities:
❑ Improve watershed -wide information base;
❑ Focus on habitat condition to measure the effectiveness of
habitat enhancement actions; and,
❑ Ensure water quality and habitat standards reflect natural
regional conditions.
A range of specific actions were identified to contribute towards
each of these eight objectives.
The watershed plan provides an implementation framework
describing how this habitat strategy can be integrated with
project review undertaken by the local Lead Entity for salmon
recovery, and with local and state regulatory and non -regulatory
programs.
Framework for Plan Implementation
The Yakima River Basin Watershed Planning Unit was formed
expressly for the purpose of developing this Watershed Plan. The
Planning Unit itself has no authority in State law to carry out
the Plan provisions, but will rely instead on its member
organizations and others to carry out the Plan. These include
local governments, special districts, state and federal agencies,
and citizens and landowners throughout the Yakima Basin. One
of the key aspects of the Watershed Planning process is local
leadership, and this aspect should be continued throughout the
implementation phase. Exhibit ES -2 presents a proposed
framework for intergovernmental coordination.
The Planning Unit accepts that any strategies, actions,
obligations or potential obligations assigned to local, state or
federal agencies, and tribes if they participate in plan
implementation in the future are directly associated with
securing necessary funding, resources, and legislative
authorizations where required, and are subject to applicable
rules and regulations, the Administrative Procedures Act and
SEPA and NEPA requirements.
Executive Summary ES -10
r
(Invitation to Partner)
Tribal
•Yakama Nation
TriCountyWaterResourceAgency/2-01-173/orate rshedplanlexecsum.doc
January 6, 2003
Exhibit ES -2
Conceptual Framework for Intergovernmental Coordination
[ Public
Federal Government
•USBR .EPA
•USFWS .USDA/USFS
•NMFS .Others
•BPA
Partnerships on
Specific Projects and
Programs
(as agreed upon)
State
*Ecology
*Agriculture
•WDFW
*Others
Local
*Counties
•Cities
•Irrigation Dist.
•Cons. Dist./Others
1
Coordination Agency
• Monitor Implementation
■ Identify Issues to be Addressed
• Support Specific Strategies
■ Annual Plan Review and Report
■ Intergovernmental Coordination and
Communications
• Admin, Technical and Outreach Support
■ Target Funding Sources
-�
Watershed Plan Implerrientation* and Assignments
Water Resources
Advisory Committee
•Input During Annual
Plan Review
*Review Plan Updates
•Guidance on Specific
Issues
Habitat
Groundwater
Management Actions
Surface Water
LInstream/Outstream)
Water Quality
£Instream/Outstreaml
Operational &
Field Strategies
(BMP)
Data Management & Capital, Storage &
Monitoring Enhancement Projects
�schnicaN
Workshops/
\ Forum
1, 2, 5, & 10 -Year Schedule & Budget
Executive Summary
sermon :a amass rommiimemem*
*Implementation will be carried out through existing state and local
authorities, updated to reflect implementation actions
ES -11
Some means of
coordination is
needed. The
Planning Unit
proposes a locally -
based "Coordination
Agency."
It is suggested that a
"Water Resources
Advisory Committee"
also be formed to
assist during the
implementation
process.
TriCountyWaterResourceAgency/2-01-173/watershedplan/execsum.doc
January 6, 2003
Plan implementation will also depend in large measure on
effective cooperative relationships with the federal government
and Yakama Nation. A program for integrating the Plan
provisions with federal and tribal activities will need to be
developed as part of the implementation process.
Because Plan implementation will necessarily involve many
different organizations, some means of coordination is needed to
ensure the Plan yields real results. The Planning Unit proposes
that a locally -based "Coordination Agency" be designated to
coordinate implementation actions. This role could be performed
by the existing Tri -County Water Resources Agency (TCWRA).
However, it is also possible that another existing organization
could provide this coordination activity; or that a new
organization could be formed for this purpose. For any of these
options, annual funding will be needed, on the order of $50,000 to
$200,000. At this time, the source of this funding has not been
determined. At the statewide level, a committee on
implementation of watershed plans recently recommended that
the state provide matching grants for this purpose, but action by
the Legislature will be needed before it is known whether State
funding will be available.
It is suggested that a "Water Resources Advisory Committee"
also be formed to assist during the implementation process. The
existing Planning Unit can be transformed and reorganized to
fulfill this need, providing ongoing guidance and stakeholder
input as the Plan is implemented. This can include State
agencies in an advisory role, perhaps through the existing State
Caucus established in support of the Watershed Plan process.
This Plan identifies specific implementation responsibilities that
could be carried out by a wide range of organizations, if they
agree to do so. This Plan does not mandate these responsibilities,
nor could it do so under State law. Therefore, Plan
implementation depends entirely on whether the organizations
indicated agree to follow through with the recommended actions.
The Plan provisions have been designed with flexibility in mind,
and with the recognition that implementing organizations cannot
carry out actions unless they have (or can obtain) financial and
staff resources to do so. It is also recognized that other
constraints exist, such as legislative authorizations, rule making,
and ordinance development that may effect the implementation
of different strategies and actions.
Executive Summary ES -12
"Lead
responsibilities" are
proposed in this
Plan for nine
organizations.
Appropriate
management or
elected
decisionmakers for
each of these
organizations
should review the
proposed
responsibilities and
determine whether
they are willing to
carry them out.
The Planning Unit
recommends this
plan for approval by
Benton, Kittitas and
Yakima Counties.
TriCountyWaterResourceAgency/2-01-173/watershedpian/execsum.doc
January 6, 2003
Table ES -1 lists the "lead responsibilities" proposed in this Plan
for nine organizations. Chapter 8 also provides more detail about
the technical aru process aspects for each o the actions lister' in
Table ES -1, The full Plan lists additional proposed
responsibilities for eachof these organizations, which would be in
a supporting capacity, rather than a lead capacity (see Chapter
8), and also identifies supporting responsibilities for other
organizations not listed here.
It is suggested that the appropriate management or elected
decisionmakers for each of these organizations review the
proposed responsibilities and determine whether they are willing
to accept them. For those actions that are accepted, it is
suggested that a formal recognition of the responsibilities that
are accepted be provided by each organization. It is also
suggested that the formal response recognize applicable
conditions, limitations, and constraints associated with each
responsibility. Such commitments may be expressed through a
variety of means, ranging from verbal commitments and letters of
support; to binding agreements or contracts. It is recognized that
the formal commitments to accept implementation
responsibilities by Counties and State agencies become final
when the Yakima Basin Watershed Plan is adopted by the
Counties in accordance with RCW 90.82.130.
Exhibit ES -3 provides a proposed schedule for initiating and
carrying out the implementation of this Watershed Plan
Plan Approval Process
In accordance with the Watershed Management Act, the
Planning Unit recommends this plan for approval by Benton,
Kittitas and Yakima Counties. The Plan will be submitted to the
three Counties for their consideration, including a public hearing
process and a joint session of the three County Commissions.
This approval process is required under the Watershed
Management Act. For more information, see Chapter 90.82.130
RCW.
Executive Summary ES -13
TriCountyWaterResourceAgency/2-01-173/watershedplan/execsum.doc
January 6, 2003
Table ES -1
Proposed Lead Responsibilities for Selected Organizationsl'1
Implementing
Organization Actions
Coordination
Agency
• Intergovernmental Coordination and Communications
• Pursue Additional Funding
• Monitor Plan Implementation
• Information Clearinghouse
• Support Specific Strategies
• Identify IssuesBarriers to be Addressed
• Targeted Public Outreach
• Prepare Annual Progress Report
• Coordinate Watershed Plan Updates
• Administrative Support
Counties
• Plan Adoption
• Establish Coordination Agency and Water Resources Advisory Committee
• Update land use regulations to protect headwaters, improve off -channel connectivity, and
improve management of riparian areas consistent with Habitat Strategy
• Co -lead with Cities to support service expansion by public water systems within urban
growth areas to replace exempt well use
• Manage stormwater in unincorporated areas consistent with surface water quality strategy
• Develop detailed ground water quality management strategies, focused on public awareness
and susceptibility assessment
• Hold County Workshop(s) to develop more detailed habitat enhancement strategies at the
county or subbasin level
Cities
• Define specific ground water management actions consistent with overall objectives of
watershed plan. Address elements such as water -use efficiency, transfers, expanded service by
public water systems within urban growth areas to replace exempt well use, etc.
• Manage wellhead protection areas
• Cities periodically review reuse opportunities during utility plan updates projects
• Manage stormwater in incorporated areas consistent with surface water quality strategy
• Update land use regulations to improve off -channel connectivity, and improve management
of riparian areas consistent with Habitat Strategy
Notes:
1 See Tables 8-1 and 8-2 for additional detail.
Executive Summary ES -14
TriCountyWaterResourceAaency/2-01-173/watershedplan/execsum.doc
January 6, 2003
Table ES -1 (cont)
Proposed Lead Responsibilities for Selected Organizations&"
r-----■------- i
a as a;r a a; a s ac a s a,as g
Organization
Actions
Ecology
• Work with local water users and affected groups to establish formai program for issuance of
new ground water rights in Yakima Basin, consistent with Watershed Plan, Alternative 11-2
(Selective Restrictions on New Ground Water Development)
• Develop and implement TMDLs for water quality parameters
• Refine water quality criteria for temperature
• Process water right transfer/change applications in a timely manner (in cooperation with
county water conservancy boards)
_k _ f SOS Study ,._a provide input application associated
6 Ten;,__ IISJ�i �v�'.,.s ;J ,Jv !.� ,.,.,..,f ^.7'tix ileo i�tf-, to its and c.s$oc:,, s•� policy
decisions. Support local governments in tracking this process
• Seek funding for a study to better defme background turbidity levels
• Administer other permitting processes and programs consistent with water quality and
habitat strategies
• Work with responsible onsible Y parties to clean up sourcesa
of groundwater contamination
-......._
Irrigation
Districts
• Work with USBR to implement water use efficiency projects, including establish
agreements, and design and construction
• Identify projects and seek funding for habitat and water quality enhancement actions
Conservation
Districts
• Work with landowners to implement BMPs and projects that improve irrigation and
cropland management, and reduce livestock impacts consistent with water quality and
habitat strategies
• Identify projects and seek funding for habitat and water quality enhancement actions
US aa_--_---- f
vo Bureau nu va
Reclamation
• Seek authorization and funding from Congress to conduct feasibility studies, prepare
environmental review, obtain permits (including ESA Section 7 consultation) and design and
construct recommended storage project(s), consistent with recommended surface water
strategy. Alternative 1-1.
• Review existing flow management regime, identify opportunities to enhance instream flows
for fish and implement where possible
• Continue working with irrigation districts to implement water use efficiency projects
through agreements, funding and other actions
Washington
Department of
Fish and
Wildlife
• Monitor aquatic habitat conditions
• Improve watershed -wide information base by developing and updating data management
tools (e.g. SHIAPP and EDT)
• Administer permitting processes and programs consistent with surface water, water quality
and habitat strategies
• Ide•nt;fy projects and seek funding for habitat enhancement actions
County Water
Cnncervancy
Boards
• Process water right change/transfer applications in a timely manner (in cooperation with
Ecology)
Notes:
1
See Tables 8-1 and 8-2 for additional detail.
Executive Summary ES -15
TriCountyWaterResourceAgency/2-01-173/watershedplan/execsum.doc
January 6, 2003
Conclusion
Under local leadership, the Yakima River Basin Watershed
Planning Unit has drawn on the collective knowledge, input and
hard work of over 100 citizens, landowners, local government
staff, state and federal agency representatives and others in
developing this Watershed Plan. The Plan provides a
comprehensive review of water resource needs and solutions for
the Yakima Basin. The Planning Unit and TCWRA intend that
this Plan serve as a "road map" to resolving the many
outstanding issues that need continued attention to ensure that
water resource management supports healthy communities, a
healthy economy and a healthy environment. To bring this
about, continued efforts will be needed over a period of many
years, involving local leadership, citizen and stakeholder input,
and support from the State of Washington and the federal
government.
Executive Summary ES -16
TriCountyWaterReso uirceAgency/2-01-173/watershedplan/ execsum.doc
January 6, 2003
Yakima
Watershed
2002
Exhibit ES -3®®
Plan - Proposed Implementation Scheduletl)
m0
Activities
2003
2004-2007
2008
2009-2050
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
04 05 06 07
Planning Unit Defines Implementation Pian
PU Finalizes Strategies and Implementation��
State & Local Govt Review Roles/Responsibilities
Plan Unit Approves Plan
Plan Review and Adoption By Counties
State & Local Govt Confirm Roles/Responsibilities
Additional SEPA Review, if Needed
Plan Review
Public Hearings in Each County
Joint County Commission Session to Approve Plan
(RCW 90.82.130)
I
f
Transition to State/Local Government
for Implementation(2)
Form Coordination Agency and Advisory Committee
Develop Federal and Tribal Coordination Plan
cooperatively with the affected agencies and tribes
Agencies Develop Individual Agency Work Plans
Workshops to Develop 1, 5, 10 -year
Agencies Develop Coordinated Work Plans (1, 5 and 10 year)
State/IocaVprivate, IocaVlocal, local private
Begin Incorporating Actions into 2004 Budgets
State, Local, Private
Develop Cooperative Agreements, As Needed
Implement Early Actions
---r-
Earl Actions
Full -Scale Implementation
Implement Management Strategies (Projects and
Programs) for Surface Water, Ground Water,
Water Quality, and Habitat
Ecology Initiates Specific Rules, where Appropriate
Annual Review to Update Budget and Work Plan
for Next Year (occurs Aug/Sep)
Monitor Implementation and Provide Feedback
Comprehensive Review and Plan Update (Every 5 Years)
®A LA,
2019 2018
Implementation schedule may be limited by available funding/resources, legislative authorizations, implementing rules and existing wondoads.
(21To coincide with budget preparation cycle for 2004.
Executive Summary
ES -17
ITEM TITLE:
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.
For Meeting of June 7, 2005
Resolution of the Yakima City Council supporting the approval of the
Watershed Plan by the Board of County Commissioners of Yakima
County, Kittitas County, Benton County, and Klickitat County; and
requesting that the Board of County Commissioners of Yakima
County, Kittitas County, Benton County, and Klickitat County convene
in joint session pursuant to RCW 90.82.130, to consider and approve
the proposed Watershed Plan.
SUBMITTED BY: David Brown, Water/Irrigation Manager
CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: David Brown, 575-6204
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
The Yakima River Basin, Watershed Planning Unit has completed a locally developed
and comprehensive water resources management plan for the Yakima River Basin
dated January 2003 as provide for in RCW 90.82. The four Counties Yakima, Kittitas,
Benton and Klickitat have been discussing the adoption of the plan for over two years.
The Yakima Subbasin plan is based on the Yakima River Basin Watershed Plan. This
resolution encourages the Counties to adopt the plan as soon as possible. A copy of
the Watershed Plan executive summary is attached.
Resolution X Ordinance Contract Other (Specify)
Mail to:
Funding Source: N/A
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: �� �� City Manager
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Pass Resolution.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Resolution adopted. RESOLUTION NO. R-2005-83