Loading...
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